Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension
draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-10-10
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-09-29
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-09-21
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-09-09
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-09-01
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-08-31
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-08-29
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-08-11
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2016-08-09
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2016-08-09
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-08-09
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-08-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-08-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-08-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-08-09
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-08-05
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and comment. |
2016-08-05
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-08-04
|
08 | Julien Laganier | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-08-04
|
08 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-08.txt |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-07-11
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-07-07
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2016-07-07
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-07-07
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] In Section 6: This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs … [Ballot comment] In Section 6: This section is to be interpreted according to the Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs [RFC5226]. This sentence is not needed, because RFC 5204 didn't define any registries, so none of the text from RFC 5226 applies. I suggest you delete this sentence. |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-07-06
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-07-05
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without reading RFC 5204. In my opinion, this draft should replicate the … [Ballot comment] The IANA considerations section does not seem to stand alone without reading RFC 5204. In my opinion, this draft should replicate the appropriate information, so that one does not need to read the obsoleted RFC to fully understand the IANA considerations. |
2016-07-05
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-07-05
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-07-05
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-07-05
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-07-04
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-06-30
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2016-06-30
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | Ballot has been issued |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-07-07 |
2016-06-20
|
07 | Terry Manderson | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-12-28
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-28
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Parameter Types subregistry of the Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/hip-parameters/ the three references to RFC 5204 will be updated to [ RFC-to-be ]. IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2015-12-28
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-12-22
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Suzanne Woolf |
2015-12-22
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Suzanne Woolf |
2015-12-17
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2015-12-17
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2015-12-17
|
07 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-07.txt |
2015-12-15
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-12-15
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: hipsec@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, "Gonzalo Camarillo" , hip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: hipsec@ietf.org, gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, "Gonzalo Camarillo" , hip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis@ietf.org, terry.manderson@icann.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-28. 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 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. This document obsoletes RFC5204. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Last call was requested |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-12-14
|
06 | Terry Manderson | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-12-11
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. |
2015-12-02
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Zhen Cao. |
2015-11-20
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao |
2015-11-20
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao |
2015-11-20
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Requested Early review by INTDIR |
2015-11-17
|
06 | Terry Manderson | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Document Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … Document Writeup for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. This document is intended to obsolete RFC 5204, which was an Experimental RFC. (2) 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: 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. This document obsoletes RFC5204. Working Group Summary: There was WG consensus behind this document. Document Quality: As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will be updated to comply with the standards-track specs. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Gonzalo Camarillo is the documetn shepherd. Terry Manderson is the responsible area director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd reviewed revision 06 of this document, which was ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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 the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) 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 understands the document and agree with it. Note that this is the revision of an existing RFC (i.e., a bis document). (10) 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 is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The only relevant nit found in the draft is an outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis has been published as RFC 7401. This will be easily fixed at a later point. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews are needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? As indicated above, rfc5201bis has already been published as an RFC. The other two drafts in the Normative References section, rfc5203bis and rfc5205bis, are planned be pusblished as RFCs in the same batch as this document. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Yes, it will obsolete RFC 5204. This fact is discussed on the title page header and on the Abstract. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA Considerations Section is complete and consistent. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new experts are required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such checks were needed. |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Responsible AD changed to Terry Manderson |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Notification list changed to "Gonzalo Camarillo" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com> |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Document shepherd changed to Gonzalo Camarillo |
2015-11-08
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-06-10
|
06 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06.txt |
2014-12-13
|
05 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-05.txt |
2014-06-09
|
04 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-04.txt |
2013-12-10
|
03 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-03.txt |
2012-09-21
|
02 | Julien Laganier | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-02.txt |
2011-09-15
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-03-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-01.txt |
2010-08-20
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-00.txt |