PROTO Writeup of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in
the title page header?
Proposed Standard, as indicated on the title page header (i.e.,
(2) 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:
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 the Host Identity Protocol Diet EXchange
(HIP DEX), a variant of the Host Identity Protocol Version 2
(HIPv2). The HIP DEX protocol design aims at reducing the
overhead of the employed cryptographic primitives by omitting
public-key signatures and hash functions. In doing so, the main
goal is to still deliver similar security properties to HIPv2.
The HIP DEX protocol is primarily designed for computation or
memory- constrained sensor/actuator devices. Like HIPv2, it is
expected to be used together with a suitable security protocol
such as the Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP) for the protection
of upper layer protocol data. In addition, HIP DEX can also be
used as a keying mechanism for security primitives at the MAC
layer, e.g., for IEEE 802.15.4 networks.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in 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 WG consensus behind this document.
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
As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the
Experimental HIP specs. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether the
HIP for Linux and OpenHIP implementations will be updated to
comply with this specification.
A proof-of-concept implementation of this spec for Sun SPOT
hardware was developed in the past but is not currently being
actively maintained. The authors also implemented this spec so
that they could make educated design decisions about the
protocol. However, the code was never distributed publicly.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Éric Vyncke is the
responsible area director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not
ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd reviewed revision 06 of this document, which
was ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has 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.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
(9) 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
The whole WG understands the document and agree with
it. Nevertheless, the number of active participants in the HIP WG
is limited at this point.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
this check needs to be thorough.
The document contains no nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
No formal reviews are needed.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) 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 plan for their
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any
referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
The IANA Considerations Section is complete and consistent.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
No new experts are required.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
No such checks were needed.