Yes, Michael; Last we discussed that (at IETF 96) people pointed that expiry would actually be the best protection, and that CGA being proven and implemented, it was the best approach. I'd like to see this confirmed (IANAL).
Cheers, Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: mercredi 17 août 2016 17:46 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: questions about address protected ND: draft-sarikaya-6lo-ap-nd > > > thanks for the reply. > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= > IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
