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.
Makes sense? Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: mercredi 17 août 2016 15:29 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd > > > I feel that somewhere between sections 3 and section 4 there is some as yet > unwritten text that explains how to do the crypto-ID calculation, and how the > 6LBR would verify it. > > I thought perhaps it leveraged more of SEND/CGA (3971/3972) than I thought, I > so glanced through those again, but I conclude that this is not the case. > > Please confirm that there is simply unwritten text at this point, rather than > references I haven't followed. > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= > IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
