Re: Last Call: 'Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format' to Proposed Standard

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@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf