Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture
RFC 4423

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) Yes

Comment (2005-02-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I've read the document, and I like it.
A pleasant break from other IETF business!

Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART
His review:

 Subject to the question below, this document appears to be ready for
 publication as an Informational RFC.  

 Questions:
 Is this, January 2005 publication, really a capture of the Fall 2003
 thinking? I presume there has been some evolution in the thinking. Is
 that evolution captured here?

(Margaret Cullen) (was No Record, Yes) Yes

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

Comment (2005-02-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
This comment is probably for the solution discussion rather than here:  are HITs unconvincing
candidates for lookup in the DNS?  6.1 discusses their lack of mapping to the conventional
definitions of "host".  We might draw an architectural line that says they need their
own database, with a thought of facilitating resolving it with NAPTR/S-NAPTR.   The
comment on RR use is that they will specify one, that the usage is much like IPSECKEY -
but this parallel may not hold all that well, if the one usage of IPSECKEY is for
opportunistic IPSec very much within the conventional definition of mapping to a host.

This could become a Discuss if it seems important to change the positive statement
that an RR will be specified.