Skip to main content

Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension
RFC 5204

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from hip-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
05 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Sam Hartman
2008-04-21
05 (System) This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-hip-base, draft-ietf-hip-esp, draft-ietf-hip-mm, draft-ietf-hip-registration
2008-04-21
05 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5201<br>RFC 5202<br>RFC 5203<br>RFC 5204<br>RFC 5206' added by Cindy Morgan
2008-04-21
05 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2008-04-21
05 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5201' added by Cindy Morgan
2008-04-18
05 (System) RFC published
2007-12-11
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-12-11
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2007-12-11
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-12-10
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-12-10
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-12-07
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-12-05
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-12-05
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-12-05
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-12-05
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-12-05
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2007-12-05
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-12-03
05 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sam Hartman has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Sam Hartman
2007-12-03
05 Mark Townsley
[Note]: 'After Sam''s discuss is cleared, I need one more position recorded from Dan, Jon or Cullen to have the 2/3 necessary to approve these …
[Note]: 'After Sam''s discuss is cleared, I need one more position recorded from Dan, Jon or Cullen to have the 2/3 necessary to approve these specs.' added by Mark Townsley
2007-12-03
05 Mark Townsley Note field has been cleared by Mark Townsley
2007-09-26
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Mark Townsley
2007-09-26
05 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Awaiting -09, and then Mark to writeup IESG note' added by Mark Townsley
2007-04-19
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza
2007-04-19
05 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2007-04-19
05 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2007-04-19
05 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Ward has been changed to Recuse from No Objection by David Ward
2007-04-19
05 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2007-04-19
05 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-04-18
05 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-04-18
05 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2007-04-18
05 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-04-18
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2007-04-17
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-04-16
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Tim Polk
2007-04-06
05 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-04-05
2007-04-02
05 Sam Hartman State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Sam Hartman
2007-04-02
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-03-26
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2007-03-23
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-03-15
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Mark Townsley
2007-03-15
05 Mark Townsley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-04-05 by Mark Townsley
2007-02-05
05 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comments:

Questions for the editors of this document:
is the intent to create a range of HIP Parameter Types
are to be …
IANA Last Call Comments:

Questions for the editors of this document:
is the intent to create a range of HIP Parameter Types
are to be assinged to types related to Rendezvous ?

Document can be interpreded to ask for TDB1 = 65500
Document can be interpreded to ask for TDB2 = 65498
Document can be interpreded to ask for TDB3 = 65502

IANA needs clarification if that is the intent or these
are values used by experimental proof-of-concept prototypes
and different values can be assigned

IANA reviewer


Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the "HIP Parmeter Types" registry
located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD
sub-registry "Hip Parameter Types"
value Type Reference
------------ ------------------------
TBD1 RVS_HMAC [RFC-hip-rvs-05]
TBD2 FROM [RFC-hip-rvs-05]
TBD3 VIA_RVS [RFC-hip-rvs-05]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for
this document.
2007-01-30
05 Mark Townsley Merged with draft-ietf-hip-base by Mark Townsley
2007-01-30
05 Mark Townsley Merged with draft-ietf-pana-pana by Mark Townsley
2007-01-29
05 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2007-01-18
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2007-01-18
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2007-01-15
05 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-01-15
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-01-15
05 Mark Townsley Last Call was requested by Mark Townsley
2007-01-15
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Mark Townsley
2007-01-15
05 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley
2007-01-15
05 Mark Townsley Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley
2007-01-15
05 Mark Townsley Created "Approve" ballot
2007-01-15
05 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-01-15
05 (System) Last call text was added
2007-01-15
05 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-10-30
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Mark Townsley
2006-09-26
05 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, …
PROTO Write-up

(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?

The Document Shepherd for this document is Gonzalo Camarillo, who has
personally reviewed this document and believes it is ready to be
forwarded to the IESG for publication.

(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?

Yes, it has been thoroughly reviewed both inside and outside the WG.

(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 those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.

No.

(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?

The whole WG is behind this document.

(1.f) 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 will
be entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd 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.

Yes.

(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].

Yes, this document has normative and informative references. The HIP WG
has already requested the publication of most of its normative
dependencies. The HIP WG will be requesting the publication of the
following draft shorly: draft-ietf-hip-dns-06

(1.i) 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 defines a rendezvous extension for the Host Identity
Protocol (HIP). The rendezvous extension extends HIP and the HIP
registration extension for initiating communication between HIP nodes
via HIP rendezvous servers. Rendezvous servers improve reachability
and operation when HIP nodes are multi-homed or mobile.


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?

No.

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?


Yes, a number of vendors are already implementing this draft.
2006-09-26
05 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2006-06-07
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05.txt
2005-10-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-04.txt
2005-07-14
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-03.txt
2005-06-16
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-02.txt
2005-02-22
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-01.txt
2004-10-19
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-00.txt