Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Native API draft: way forward

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:31:09 +0300

Hi,

since nobody has objected, we will do 2) (see email below).

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> as you know, the WGLC on the native API draft finished a while ago. 
> There were a few technical comments on the draft during the WGLC, most 
> of which have been incorporated into the draft. Now we need to make a 
> decision on how to proceed with this draft.
> 
> There are some concerns that the API defined in this document may need 
> to change as soon as we have a little more experience with NAT traversal 
> and HIP-based overlays. With this in mind, we have two options:
> 
> 1) publish the draft now stressing that it defines an experimental API 
> and, as soon as we understand how NAT traversal and HIP-based overlays 
> will affect the API, publish a new spec, most likely modifying the API.
> 
> 2) wait for the NAT traversal and HIP-based overlays work to be more 
> mature before publishing this draft. This way, the API defined by the 
> draft will have better chances to be future proof.
> 
> 
> I lean towards doing 2), but I would like to get feedback from the 
> community on what is the best way forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo
> HIP co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec