Skip to main content

HIP BONE: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Based Overlay Networking Environment (BONE)
draft-ietf-hip-bone-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Sean Turner
2010-08-23
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-08-23
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-08-23
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-08-17
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-08-02
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-07-19
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-19
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-07-19
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-07-19
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-07-19
07 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2010-07-19
07 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-06-28
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2010-06-28
07 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
This is a very well written document and it helped me a lot to understand how HIP works and how overlay networks will …
[Ballot comment]
This is a very well written document and it helped me a lot to understand how HIP works and how overlay networks will be built and deployed based on it. As with the other hip documents I think it needs to include a short explanation of the reasons for which the WG was chartered to issue Experimental RFCs, what kind of experimentation should be planned for the deployment of the framwork described in this document, what are the expected results, and whether there are deployment concerns or limitations that need to be taken into consideration by operators. If this information can be found in some other hip document a reference would be fine, or maybe this is the place to incude such information and be refered by other documents.
2010-06-28
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot discuss]
2010-06-22
07 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
6.2.  Overlay TTL

  The type of the OVERLAY_TTL parameter is critical (as defined in
  Section 5.2.1 of [RFC5201]) and …
[Ballot comment]
6.2.  Overlay TTL

  The type of the OVERLAY_TTL parameter is critical (as defined in
  Section 5.2.1 of [RFC5201]) and therefore the final recipient of the
  packet, and all HIP hosts on the path, MUST support it.  If the
  parameter is used in a scenario where the final recipient does not
  support the parameter, the parameter SHOULD be removed before
  forwarding the packet to the final recipient.

The last quoted sentence seem to contradict the previous one. But even if it doesn't, how can the sender or an intermediate node learn about the recipient not supporting the OVERLAY_TTL parameter?
2010-06-22
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-06-22
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-07.txt
2010-06-20
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
2010-06-18
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-06-17
2010-06-17
07 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-06-17
07 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner
2010-06-17
07 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-06-17
07 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
Please consider the SECDIR review comments for your next revision.
2010-06-17
07 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
In section 3.1.2 it says:

Before two HIP hosts exchange upper-layer traffic, they perform a
four-way handshake that is referred to as the …
[Ballot discuss]
In section 3.1.2 it says:

Before two HIP hosts exchange upper-layer traffic, they perform a
four-way handshake that is referred to as the HIP base exchange.

draft-ietf-hip-hiccups says it's required in Section 6.  But then in 5.4 of this document and draft-ietf-hip-hiccups it says that this isn't true.  In fact, Upper-layer traffic can be exchanged without the base exchange.  Seems like 3.1.2 needs to be rephrased or the model needs to be expanded.
2010-06-17
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-06-17
07 Sean Turner
[Ballot discuss]
In section 3.1.2 it says:

Before two HIP hosts exchange upper-layer traffic, they perform a
four-way handshake that is referred to as the …
[Ballot discuss]
In section 3.1.2 it says:

Before two HIP hosts exchange upper-layer traffic, they perform a
four-way handshake that is referred to as the HIP base exchange.

draft-ietf-hip-hiccups says it's required in Section 6.  But then in 5.4 of this document and draft-ietf-hip-hiccups it says that this isn't true.  In fact, Upper-layer traffic can be exchanged without the base exchange.  Seems like 3.1.2 needs to be rephrased or the model needs to be expanded.
2010-06-17
07 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-06-17
07 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
The document doesn't describe byte order used for the OVERLAY_TTL parameter.

Section 6.1 and 6.2 list possible parameter numbers to be used by …
[Ballot comment]
The document doesn't describe byte order used for the OVERLAY_TTL parameter.

Section 6.1 and 6.2 list possible parameter numbers to be used by IANA, these should have been left out to avoid conflicting allocations.

6.2.  Overlay TTL

  The type of the OVERLAY_TTL parameter is critical (as defined in
  Section 5.2.1 of [RFC5201]) and therefore the final recipient of the
  packet, and all HIP hosts on the path, MUST support it.  If the
  parameter is used in a scenario where the final recipient does not
  support the parameter, the parameter SHOULD be removed before
  forwarding the packet to the final recipient.

The last quoted sentence seem to contradict the previous one. But even if it doesn't, how can the sender or an intermediate node learn about the recipient not supporting the OVERLAY_TTL parameter?
2010-06-17
07 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2010-06-16
07 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-06-16
07 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-06-16
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-06-16
07 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
This is a very well written document and it helped me a lot to understand how HIP works and how overlay networks will …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a very well written document and it helped me a lot to understand how HIP works and how overlay networks will be built and deployed based on it. As with the other hip documents I think it needs to include a short explanation of the reasons for which the WG was chartered to issue Experimental RFCs, what kind of experimentation should be planned for the deployment of the framwork described in this document, what are the expected results, and whether there are deployment concerns or limitations that need to be taken into consideration by operators. If this information can be found in some other hip document a reference would be fine, or maybe this is the place to incude such information and be refered by other documents.
2010-06-16
07 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-06-16
07 Ralph Droms State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ralph Droms
2010-06-14
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
50% of the text are a "Background on HIP" (Section 3), which seems a bit excessive.
2010-06-14
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-06-11
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-06-07
07 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters" registry located at …
IANA comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xhtml
sub-registry "Parameter Types"

Value Parameter Type Length Reference
----- -------------- ------ ----------
TBD(980) OVERLAY_ID variable [RFC-hip-bone-06]
TBD(65011) OVERLAY_TTL 4 [RFC-hip-bone-06]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xhtml
sub-registry "Notify Message Types"

Value Notify Message Type Reference
----- ------------------- ---------
TBD OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED [RFC-hip-bone-06]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2010-06-07
07 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-06-03
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2010-06-03
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2010-05-28
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-05-28
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-06-17 by Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms [Note]: 'David Ward (dward@juniper.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms Ballot has been issued by Ralph Droms
2010-05-28
07 Ralph Droms Created "Approve" ballot
2010-05-28
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-05-28
07 (System) Last call text was added
2010-05-28
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-05-06
07 Cindy Morgan
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the …
  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

David Ward is the sheperd for this document. He believes it is ready.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has been adequately reviewed.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

The are no concerns about this document and no IPR has been filed.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

It represents the consensus of the whole WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document passes ID nits.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has both normative and informative references. All the
normative references will be RFCs by the time this document is
published as an RFC.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The IANA considerations section is appropriate.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

The document does not use formal language.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary

            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

  This document specifies a framework to build HIP (Host Identity
  Protocol)-based overlay networks.  This framework uses HIP to perform
  connection management.  Other functions, such as data storage and
  retrieval or overlay maintenance, are implemented using protocols
  other than HIP.  These protocols are loosely referred to as peer
  protocols.

          Working Group Summary

            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

There was strong consensus on this document.

          Document Quality

            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are prototype implementations of this spec. A few vendors have
expressed interest in implementing this in the context of P2PSIP
services.

          Personnel

            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are .'

David Ward is the document shepherd for this document. Ralph Droms is
the responsible AD for this document.
2010-05-06
07 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2010-05-06
07 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'David Ward (dward@juniper.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-04-09
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-06.txt
2010-03-08
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-05.txt
2010-01-26
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-04.txt
2009-10-26
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-03.txt
2009-07-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-02.txt
2009-03-09
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-01.txt
2008-10-27
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-bone-00.txt