Christian,
Thanks for your quick re-spin of this draft. I have reviewed
this latest version, and it addresses all of the issues/questions I
had raised.
Thanks, again!
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Vogt [mailto:chvogt(_at_)tm(_dot_)uka(_dot_)de]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:10 PM
To: Mipshop; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Jari Arkko; Wassim Haddad; Vijay
Devarapalli; Stefano Faccin
Subject: Revised I-D: draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
Hello folks,
we updated draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba according to the comments and
suggestions that Eric Gray posted on the IETF Discussion mailing list
during IETF Last Call. Here is a change log (not including purely
editorial items):
o Reference to RFC 3972 ("Cryptographically Generated
Addresses") is
now normative.
o More detailed IANA considerations.
o Fixed reference to BCP 14, RFC 2119, so that Nit Checker does no
longer complain.
o Clarified in Section 3.1 that CGAs do not require a public-key
infrastructure, even though they make use of public-key
cryptography.
o Included intended status ("Proposed Standard") at beginning of
document.
You can access the revised draft version as well as a diff against the
previous version 02 at:
http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt
http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02to03.html
Best regards,
- Christian
--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf