Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture
draft-ietf-hip-arch-03
Yes
(Margaret Cullen)
No Objection
(David Kessens)
(Russ Housley)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2005-02-03)
Unknown
I've read the document, and I like it. A pleasant break from other IETF business! Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART His review: Subject to the question below, this document appears to be ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Questions: Is this, January 2005 publication, really a capture of the Fall 2003 thinking? I presume there has been some evolution in the thinking. Is that evolution captured here?
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
(was No Record, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-02-03)
Unknown
This comment is probably for the solution discussion rather than here: are HITs unconvincing candidates for lookup in the DNS? 6.1 discusses their lack of mapping to the conventional definitions of "host". We might draw an architectural line that says they need their own database, with a thought of facilitating resolving it with NAPTR/S-NAPTR. The comment on RR use is that they will specify one, that the usage is much like IPSECKEY - but this parallel may not hold all that well, if the one usage of IPSECKEY is for opportunistic IPSec very much within the conventional definition of mapping to a host. This could become a Discuss if it seems important to change the positive statement that an RR will be specified.
David Kessens Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown