At 06:28 AM 2/02/2006, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format '
<draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
2006-03-01.
I have reviewed this document, and I support the document being published
as a Proposed Standard.
This work can be seen as a spin-off from the SHIM6 work, attempting to
ensure that the work in hash-based addresses and cryptographically
generated addresses do not head off in wildly divergent paths. The proposed
extension fields allow HBAs to be compatible with CGAs (see
draft-ietf-shim6-hba-01.txt, Section 2 for further details), and this
approach make considerable sense to me.
In case anyone is wondering, the reason why this document
(draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-00.txt) has not been adopted as a SHIM6 Working
Group document is that this is more general than just SHIM6, and, strictly
speaking, lies outside the SHIM6 charter. Following consultation with the
Internet Area ADs, this document is being progressed as an individual
submission to the IESG.
regards,
Geoff Huston
(SHIM6 co-chair)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf