IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 17 August 2016 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E7B12DD37; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M6hEYx9bWzOP; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1710312DD2C; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 08:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4907C200A5; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:57:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0ACA639DC; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:46:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <f8dbb3f22fdb4cea8aab3045b9ca8f00@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <22880.1471440526@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <f8dbb3f22fdb4cea8aab3045b9ca8f00@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:46:11 -0400
Message-ID: <21681.1471448771@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/IVoYewbAFgr9ADZerlGggzNihVc>
Cc: "draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd@ietf.org" <draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:46:15 -0000

thanks for the reply.

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > It is largely unwritten Michael,

    > That's ultimately a WG decision, and part of that decision is that we
    > want to assess if the IPR on CGA is an issue or not.

    > My take is that we should adopt the work if we agree on the overall
    > idea, knowing that CGA is one way of getting there; and then refine
    > this as a WG.

a) Hosnieh's proposals
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas/

   might not suffer from the same IPR.

b) I wonder what is the expiry on the IPR. CGA is more than a decade old now.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email