On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Authors of the following drafts, > > could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen > next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in > the future? > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/ > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo
Gonzalo and all, Here is a brief update on the mobility and multihoming drafts. I posted a revision 10 of RFC5206-bis last week: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-10.txt I believe that we could close all the remaining open issues as either resolved or wontfix (editorial); the changes that appear in draft-10 are as follows: - issue 21: clarified that HI MAY be included in UPDATE for benefit of middleboxes - changed one informative reference from RFC 4423-bis to RFC 7401 - removed discussion about possible multiple LOCATOR_SET and ESP_INFO parameters in an UPDATE (per previous mailing list discussion) - removed discussion about handling LOCATOR_SET parameters in packets other than UPDATE (per previous mailing list discussion) I had hoped to post a revision of the multihoming draft with all of the open issues resolved by now, but there is still some work for me to do, so I just refreshed the previous version for the time being: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-07.txt I will work on publishing -08 shortly and then I think we could consider a WGLC on the pair of drafts. - Tom _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
