Certainly happy to do that, though it would need to be the first week of December at earliest.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:35 AM Gonzalo Camarillo < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > yes, maybe a quick conference call with the authors and the relevant ADs > would be the best way to agree on a way forward. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Gonzalo > > > > *From:* Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2020 23:48 > *To:* Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Miika Komu <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>; Erik Kline < > [email protected]>; Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Terry Manderson <[email protected]>; Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; > Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Need to close all draft-ietf-hip-dex-21 pending issues... > before 2021-Jan-13... > > > > Bob, > > > > It is really up to the authors (representing the will of the HIP WG) to > get a revised I-D addressing the SEC Ads’ concerns. If they are satisfied > with open questions put in an appendix (e.g., “for future work”) and they > clear their blocking DISCUSS points, then I will more than happy to give > the final go to HIP DEX. > > > > Having email/voice exchanges with DISCUSS owners (and Ekr) can probably > help as well. > > > > Did you consider changing the intended status to ‘experimental’ ? > > > > Obviously, the earlier, the better > > > > Regards > > > > -éric > > > > *From: *Robert Moskowitz <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, 13 November 2020 at 20:10 > *To: *Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Miika Komu < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>, Erik Kline < > [email protected]>, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, Terry Manderson <[email protected]>, > Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>, Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Need to close all draft-ietf-hip-dex-21 pending issues... > before 2021-Jan-13... > > > > I have reached the point on going through all the old notes where any > attempts at changes only seem cosmetic. I spend a couple hours a week on > it, trying something else. I need to take a different approach, perhaps. > > I just completed another round of going through the various emails. > > What I am thinking about is put together a single note on what I perceive > as outstanding issues, and put them in an Appendix. I would push this out, > still this month and see how things go from there. > > I have really tried to come to some accommodation on the issues raised. > > Events are somewhat catching up. NIST LWC selection process may well > result in renewing looks at technologies like HIP-DEX for 8-bit processors > (see the latest LWC presentations including the build rate for 8-bit > processors). > > I welcome your response. > > Bob > > On 11/13/20 9:32 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Dear HIP, dear authors, > > > > This document was requested for publication [1] in February 2018 (2.5 > years ago), then its IESG evaluation has been deferred, then I took over > this document from Terry Manderson in March 2019, then it went again > through IESG evaluation in July 2020 and there are still DISCUSS points to > be addressed even after a couple of revised I-D... > > > > Difficult not to observe that this document does not progress very fast. > > > > Moreover, this document is a normative reference for rfc4423-bis waiting > in the RFC editor queue since March 2019... So, also blocking the HIP-NAT > document [2]. > > > > After discussion with the HIP chair, Gonzalo in cc, we have taken the > following decision: if a revised I-D addressing remaining DISCUSS points + > Ekr’s ones is not uploaded within 2 months (13th of January 2021), then I > will request the HIP WG to accept the complete removal of section A.3.3 of > the rfc4423-bis document (1 page about HIP-DEX in the appendix) + the > reference to the HIP-DEX document [3]. This will allow the immediate > publication of the rfc4423-bis and HIP-NAT documents. > > > > The HIP DEX authors may also select to change the intended status of the > document to ‘experimental’ (if the HIP WG agrees) as this may reduce the > security requirements by the SEC AD and Ekr. > > > > Gonzalo and I are still hoping to get a revised HIP-DEX shortly, > > > > Regards > > > > -éric > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-dex/history/ > > [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C386 > <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=79ca9a50-2651a37b-79cadacb-866038973a15-254f733fa2299a75&q=1&e=c8652521-144c-4c45-9db8-f04e01a7aa3d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC386> > > [3] and possibly I will set the state of HIP-DEX as ‘dead’ on the > datatracker > > > > > > -- > Robert Moskowitz > Owner > HTT Consulting > C: 248-219-2059 > F: 248-968-2824 > E: [email protected] > > There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets > the credit > > --> >
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
