Re: HIP BOF Review

[Vern Paxson <vern@icir.org>]

> 	sounds to me that HIP fits into IRTF better than IETF.

I continue to wonder that, too.  When I raised this question initially
when the BOF was announced, Margaret replied:

> .... Thomas (rightly, I think) pointed out that there are
> working implemenations of HIP, and that the HIP group considers
> this to be engineering, not research.  Engineering also commonly
> involves some level of prototyping/experimentation, and I think
> that's the sense in which the HIP folks would like to publish
> these documents as experimental.

I'm wondering whether the BOF (which unfortunately I could not attend)
changed Thomas's thinking about this.

In particular, "working implementations" does not strike me as the distinction
between IRTF or IETF activity.  There have been RGs that have thrived around
just such.  "engineering, not research" is of course a distinction.  However,
(1) it's not clear the HIP group is objective in making this assessment,
and (2) I think it's timely to charter an IRTF RG on the topic of separating
identifiers from locators [*].

		Vern


[*]  I'm finally above to shut down NSRG - Eliot has given up on revising
     their one document for RFC publication.