Hi,
from the viewpoint of research, the different aspects of HIP seems to be
covered quite well and the architecture has been adopted as a basis for
a number of other research-oriented protocols. The research group is
closing, so I don't think there will be many new variants (like the DEX
and RFID-version of HIP) of the architecture. From the viewpoint of
engineering, we have currently three well-known implementations (in
addition to some early approaches and few java-based implementations)
that we have successfully inteoperated earlier.
Combining the three aspects, I'd lean slightly towards Proposed Standard
but I guess the issue is subtle as RFC4423 does not have any normative
language.
On 09/18/2012 10:53 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Hi,
in particular, please provide input on whether 4423-bis, which does not
have normative language, should be (eventually) published as a PS or an
Informational RFC.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
On 13/09/2012 11:11 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Folks,
I would like to start the WGLCs on the following two drafts. These WGLCs
will end on September 30th.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/
In addition to technical comments, please also let the list know whether
you still care about these specifications. Given the low level of energy
in the WG, one of the issues the IESG will evaluate will be whether
there is still enough interest behind all these bis documents.
Please, send your comments to this mailing list.
Thanks,
Gonzalo
HIP WG co-chair
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
