Subject: [Hipsec] LC: draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04.txt ready for IESG?

From: [email-masked] (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Mon Sep 29 04:42:00 2003

I have submitted draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04.txt to the
repositiories.  In the meanwhile, it is available in
different formats at the following URLs.

http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04.txt
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04.xml
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04.html
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04-diff.html
http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04-chbar.txt

The changes from -03 are mostly editorial, with a few places
clarified to more strictly say that non-cryptographic HIs are
not currently defined.

In my opinion, this would be ready to be submitted to the IESG
to be considered for Informational.  Since we do not have a
WG, we cannot really run a WG LC.  Anyway, I will consider the
next two weeks, until Monday Oct 13th, 10pm PST, as an informal
"whatever" Last Call.  If I don't receive any comments by the end
of the period, I will simply submit -04 to the IESG.  Otherwise,
I will produce yet another version, and depending on the type of
comments (editorial or substantial) either discuss them here or
simply fix and directly submit the new version to the IESG.

Hence, if you have not reviewed the document lately, now would
be the perfect time to do so.

--Pekka Nikander

---

From: [email-masked] (George Gross)
Date: Mon Sep 29 06:24:01 2003

Hi Pekka,

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Pekka Nikander wrote:

<snip>
> to be considered for Informational.

Not that it makes substantive difference, you may wish to consider
publishing hip-arch as an Experimental RFC.

br,
	George

---

From: [email-masked] (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Mon Sep 29 06:42:00 2003

George,

> publishing hip-arch as an Experimental RFC.

Would you please enlighten me about the difference?  hip-arch
doesn't specify a protocol, and I thought that Experimental are
meant for protocols, i.e., documents that could perhaps be
standards track but aren't for various reasons.  But perhaps
I am wrong, it's been ages since I last check the procedural
RFcs.

We are definitely planning to submit the actual base protocol
spec as Experimental, as soon as it gets stable enough.
Hopefully that will be soon, around the time of Minneapolis.
The remaining issues seem to be resolvable.

--Pekka Nikander

---

From: [email-masked] (George Gross)
Date: Mon Sep 29 07:33:00 2003

Hi,

> I am wrong, it's been ages since I last check the procedural

I haven't looked to 2026 lately... I suppose it depends on whether HIP
arch could ever transition to standards track when HIP gains enough
critical mass to become mainstream. Analogous to RFC2401, you would want a
standards track arch doc.

I'd consult your local AD, or flip a coin ;o)

br,
	George

<snip>