Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface
RFC 6537

[Ballot comment]
This information was provided to the ISE:

  The Gen-ART Review by Kathleen Moriarty on 20-Oct-2011 raised a
  concern about the use of SHA-1.  The authors said a change would be
  made, but it has not been posted yet.

[Ballot comment]
I am clearing my discuss because Ralph had already run an IETF LC on this. Anyway, since some people in the HIP WG seem to have missed it, I have sent a note to the HIP WG's list so that everybody is aware of this draft. Additionally, I have also ask the WG to consider this issue when working on the bis specs.

[Ballot discuss]
This discuss relates to the discusses Jari and Adrian have on the document. In HIP, the idea is that new packet types are defined in the HIP WG (the policy requires that they are defined within the IETF). This draft was not discussed in the WG. Practically speaking, there is of course a substantial overlap between people following the WG and people following the RG. However, this was not discussed formally in the WG.

As a way forward, we need to decide whether we want to advance this work as an AD sponsor draft or as a HIP WG item. In practice, what we need is the HIP WG to have a look at it and give its OK and an IETF LC.

With respect to whether or not we still want this IANA policy in the HIP bis specs, I will bring this up in the HIP WG. The authors of this draft do not need to worry about that at all.

[Ballot discuss]
Ari Keränen helped me look at this draft and he pointed out the following:

The packet defines a new HIP packet type [1] but these values can only be allocated through "IETF
Consensus" which implies that the draft couldn't really come from outside the IETF [3]

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-04#section-8
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5201#section-9
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1

IESG Approval for this registry would have been the right thing. Food for thought for RFC 5201bis?

[Ballot discuss]
A quick process question before I move to a No Objection ballot.

Was this document explicitly brought to the attention of the HIP working group (as well as the IETF last call)?

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Kathleen Moriarty on 20-Oct-2011 raised a
  concern about the use of SHA-1.  The authors said a change would be
  made, but it has not been posted yet.

In the HIP Packet Type registry in the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml

a new packet type is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ tbd ]
Packet Type: HIP Distributed Hash Table
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of 20.

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed
upon approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request to review the following document,
submitted for publication as an Experimental RFC by the IRTF:

  'Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash Table Interface'
 

This document calls for the assignment of a new HIP Packet Type from
the HIP Packet Type registry,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/hip-parameters.xml
Assignment of HIP Packet Types requires IETF consensus.  The purpose
of this last call is to assess IETF consensus for the assignment
described in the document.

Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by
2011-11-01. 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 specifies a common interface for using HIP with a
  Distributed Hash Table service to provide a name-to-Host-Identity-Tag
  lookup service and a Host-Identity-Tag-to-address lookup service.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hiprg-dht/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hiprg-dht/


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