Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environment (HIP BONE) Instance Specification for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-10

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for responding so quickly to my Discuss concern, and thank you even more for coming up with a suggested resolution that was better than my suggestion.

[Ballot comment]

I'm not sure I follow how this works entirely but it seems
like a fine thing with which to experiment.

Am I right that an application running on a RELOAD HIP BONE
couldn't easily interoperate with an application using a
"standard" RELOAD configuration, i.e. that uses TLS to
secure its connections to the RELOAD servers? If so, that
seems a pity but it'd be good to explain that in the draft
maybe (and why that's ok).

I agree with Sean and Spencer's discusses. Couldn't you make
the use of ENCRYPTED mandatory and not just RECOMMENDED?

[Ballot comment]

no-obj

I'm not sure I follow how this works entirely but it seems
like a fine thing with which to experiment.

Am I right that an application running on a RELOAD HIP BONE
couldn't easily interoperate with an application using a
"standard" RELOAD configuration, i.e. that uses TLS to
secure its connections to the RELOAD servers? If so, that
seems a pity but it'd be good to explain that in the draft
maybe (and why that's ok).

I agree with Sean and Spencer's discusses. Couldn't you make
the use of ENCRYPTED mandatory and not just RECOMMENDED?

[Ballot comment]
I know that the HIP charter curtails the WG to work on Experimental
documents, but I would have liked this document to be clearer about the
parameters of the experiment that it describes. What are the walls
around the garden? How does it avoid impacting "the Internet"? What
things are the experimenters asked to look out for? What explicit
experimentation should be attempted (e.g., varying parameters)? How
will the WG judge the success or otherwise of the experiment?

It is by no means mandatory to include such a commentary, but it would
make the document so much more valuable.

[Ballot comment]
In 4.  Node ID Generation

  In the other Node ID mode, namely "RELOAD", all 128 bits are
  generated as defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] resulting in a larger
  usable address space.  The downside of not using the ORCHID prefix is
  that such Node IDs can not be used with legacy applications and APIs,
  as discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC6079].

this text took a few reads to parse, and part of my problem was an explicit "downside" that I had to match with an implicit upside. I could more easily have understood this text if it was something like this:

  In the other Node ID mode, namely "RELOAD", all 128 bits are
  generated as defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. This results in a
  larger usable address space than using the ORCHID mode,
  but the resulting Node IDs cannot be used with legacy
  applications and APIs, as discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC6079].

[Ballot discuss]
I'm confused about the story on encryption. Please help unconfuse me!

In 6.  Securing Communication, I'm reading

  With a RELOAD HIP BONE, instead of using TLS connections as defined
  in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base], all HIP overlay messages SHOULD be either
  sent using encrypted connections (such as IPsec ESP tunnel between
  two peers [RFC6261]) or the contents of the messages SHOULD be in an
  ENCRYPTED parameter (see Section 5.2.15 of [RFC5201]).  Use of
  encrypted connections is RECOMMENDED since that provides
  confidentiality also for the HIP headers.

as roughly

  you SHOULD use encrypted connections,
    but that might not happen, and if you don't,
    you SHOULD use an ENCRYPTED parameter,
      but that might not happen, either

If I didn't mess that up ... I'm reading 11.  Security Considerations

  The option to send overlay messages unencrypted makes it possible for
  hosts that are not part of the overlay to inspect the contents of the
  messages and thus should be avoided when possible.

and I'm wondering why the specification creates an option and then says that option should be avoided when possible.

Could you say anything to help the reader understand why at least the payloads, and maybe even the HIP headers, might be sent "in the clear"?

Would a sending application know when a payload could be sent "in the clear"?

Would a HIP overlay know what payloads could safely be sent "in the clear"?

[Ballot comment]
In 4.  Node ID Generation

  In the other Node ID mode, namely "RELOAD", all 128 bits are
  generated as defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] resulting in a larger
  usable address space.  The downside of not using the ORCHID prefix is
  that such Node IDs can not be used with legacy applications and APIs,
  as discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC6079].

this text took a few reads to parse, and part of my problem was an explicit "downside" that I had to match with an implicit upside. I could more easily have understood this text if it was something like this:

  In the other Node ID mode, namely "RELOAD", all 128 bits are
  generated as defined in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. This results in a larger
  usable address space than using the ORCHID mode, but the resulting
  Node IDs cannot be used with legacy applications and APIs,
  as discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC6079].

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-08.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the RELOAD Overlay Link Protocol registry in the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) page at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/

a single Overlay Link Protocol will be added to the registry as follows:

Link Protocol: HIP
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]


Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environment (HIP BONE) Instance Specification for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip)
to consider the following document:
- 'Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environment (HIP BONE)
  Instance Specification for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-09-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document is the Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking
  Environment (HIP BONE) instance specification for the REsource
  LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol.  The document provides the
  details needed to build a RELOAD-based overlay that uses HIP.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-08
June 19th, 2013, by Miika Komu

(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?

Experimental, as indicated by the draft's boilterplate. The HIP WG was
originally chartered to produce experimental RFCs, and this is one of
them. Afterwards, the HIP WG was chartered to move some of the
Experimental RFCs it produced to PS but this draft predates that
effort and, thus, should be published as Experimental.


(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:

Technical Summary:

This document is the Host Identity Protocol-Based Overlay Networking
Environment (HIP BONE) instance specification for the REsource
LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) protocol.  The document provides the
details needed to build a RELOAD-based overlay that uses HIP.


Working Group Summary:

There is WG consensus behind this draft. The WG actively worked on
this draft at the same time as RELOAD was being developed (this draft
was also discussed in the P2PSIP WG, where RELOAD was developed, so
that RELOAD had enough hooks to be able to run with HIP). This draft
was put on hold when the RELOAD specification got stuck (for a long
time) during its IESG review. Now that RELOAD has been published, this
spec can be published as well (RELOAD is, obviously, an essential
dependency for this draft).


Document Quality:

There is at least one implementation of this draft. The delay in the
publication of RELOAD has a negative impact in the number of people
implementing RELOAD-related specs. Nevertheless, now that RELOAD has
been published, the interest seems to be growing again.


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Miika Komu is the document shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.


(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 version 08 of the draft as well as a
number of previous versions. This version is ready to be sent to the
IESG (after the mandatory IETF LC).

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(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.

No.

(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.

No concerns.

(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?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(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 it?

There is a strong WG consensus behind this document among all the WG's
active participants.

(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 publicly available.)

No.

(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.

Running idnits 2.12.17 on version 08 of the draft results in no errors
or warnings.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal reviews are needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(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 completion?

The only normative reference to a draft (the rest of the references
are to RFCs) is the RELOAD spec, which is already in AUTH48 at the
time of writing.

(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.

No.

(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 it unnecessary.

No.

(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 RFC
5226).

The IANA Considerations Section is consistent with the rest of the
document.

(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 registries.

None.

(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 required.