I have reached the point on going through all the old notes where any
attempts at changes only seem cosmetic. I spend a couple hours a week
on it, trying something else. I need to take a different approach, perhaps.
I just completed another round of going through the various emails.
What I am thinking about is put together a single note on what I
perceive as outstanding issues, and put them in an Appendix. I would
push this out, still this month and see how things go from there.
I have really tried to come to some accommodation on the issues raised.
Events are somewhat catching up. NIST LWC selection process may well
result in renewing looks at technologies like HIP-DEX for 8-bit
processors (see the latest LWC presentations including the build rate
for 8-bit processors).
I welcome your response.
Bob
On 11/13/20 9:32 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Dear HIP, dear authors,
This document was requested for publication [1] in February 2018 (2.5
years ago), then its IESG evaluation has been deferred, then I took
over this document from Terry Manderson in March 2019, then it went
again through IESG evaluation in July 2020 and there are still DISCUSS
points to be addressed even after a couple of revised I-D...
Difficult not to observe that this document does not progress very fast.
Moreover, this document is a normative reference for rfc4423-bis
waiting in the RFC editor queue since March 2019... So, also blocking
the HIP-NAT document [2].
After discussion with the HIP chair, Gonzalo in cc, we have taken the
following decision: if a revised I-D addressing remaining DISCUSS
points + Ekr’s ones is not uploaded within 2 months (13^th of January
2021), then I will request the HIP WG to accept the complete removal
of section A.3.3 of the rfc4423-bis document (1 page about HIP-DEX in
the appendix) + the reference to the HIP-DEX document [3]. This will
allow the immediate publication of the rfc4423-bis and HIP-NAT documents.
The HIP DEX authors may also select to change the intended status of
the document to ‘experimental’ (if the HIP WG agrees) as this may
reduce the security requirements by the SEC AD and Ekr.
Gonzalo and I are still hoping to get a revised HIP-DEX shortly,
Regards
-éric
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-dex/history/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-dex/history/>
[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C386
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C386>
[3] and possibly I will set the state of HIP-DEX as ‘dead’ on the
datatracker
--
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:r...@labs.htt-consult.com
There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who
gets the credit
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
