Hi,

On 11/23/2015 09:05 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
Well, the previous message's formatting certainly wasn't what I had
in mind, so let's try again below.


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/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/

There are six open issues on RFC5206-bis, listed here:
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=rfc5206-bis

One of them (#12) probably should be closed now based on the draft
version 09 published in July.

Agreed.

One related to flow bindings (#23) probably can be left for further
study, with no action at this time, since it hasn't been pursued for
many years.

Ok by me.

One (#21) suggests to include HI parameter in the UPDATE, for benefit
of middleboxes. Any objection to adding specification text that HI
MAY be included in UPDATE?

MAY is fine.

One (#15) suggests to name UPDATE packets with different names such
as UPDATE1, UPDATE2, and UPDATE3, for clarity. I wonder whether this
can be handled editorially without requiring code point allocation.

I read the mobility draft through and I don't this is necessary.

One (#9) suggests to make some mandatory features optional, since at
least one implementation does not implement all mandatory features. I
think that perhaps this will require a review of both of the open
source implementations to see whether any should be relaxed.

I think this can be closed since mobility and multihoming drafts are separated now.

One (#8) asks to allow that locator announcement may be decoupled
from SA creation. This requires the definition of another example use
case and extending the specification.

There hasn't been more work on this, so I suggest just closing this issue.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

Reply via email to