wiki:IETF87

Version 2 (modified by brian@…, 9 years ago) (diff)

--

HIP

The HIP WG is chartered to finish an old Experimental RFC-to-be and to revise the main HIP specs, which are also Experimental, into Proposed Standards.

The old Experimental RFC-to-be is draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance

This draft was simply waiting for the RELOAD spec to be approved. Now that that has finally happened, this draft is being progressed. We have already requested its publication.

The WG also has a few "bis" drafts. They revise the old Experimental HIP specs. Additionally, there are a couple of drafts that are spin offs of those specs: the NAT traversal mechanism and the multihoming part of the mobility and multihoming spec. We decided to document these in separate specs for clarity.

We intend to request their publication in batches so that reviewers have the necessary context when performing their reviews. We will be requesting the publication of the first batch, which includes RFC 4843bis, RFC 5201bis, and RFC 5202bis, shortly.

Sunset4

Sunset4 had 2 sessions during IETF87.

The first session discussed the gap-analysis draft, an ARP issue draft, an analysis draft on NAT64 port allocation methods, a method to filter DNS A records draft, and a SIP-v4-v6 issues draft. No change were discussed on the status of the documents. The problem statement part of the ARP issue draft is being considered to be folded into the gap-analysis draft. The solution part of the same draft will require more work.

The second session was held together with DHC. The goal is to identify overlaps between the WGs and to raise awareness of both WGs about the related works. The turn-off-ipv4 using dhcpv6 and RA draft, the DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 draft, the DHC v4 configuration draft and the DHCPv6 dynamic DNS reconfigure draft were discussed. The first one has been primarily discussed in sunset4 and the remaining have been primarily discussed in DHC. No change were discussed on the status of the documents. The sunset4 turn-off-ipv4 using dhcpv6 and RA draft seem to raise no major issue from both groups and seems an acceptable approach. However concerns about the MIF case and security considerations need to be addressed. It will be most likely balloted in the sunset4 for WG adoption.