The draft should indicated on top first page that it updates RFC6775, 7400, and 8505, it only shows updating RFC8505.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert= [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Benjamin (and 6lo) > > > > We are soliciting your help on AP ND for hopefully the last time, about > the last step, that was supposed to be the IANA section that was missing > for JOSE and Crypto Type 2. > > > > Rene worked quite a bit with Jim and the conclusion that I made from that > is that the formats that we already discussed in appendix B (SEC1) were > better suited than JOSE (or COSE) and avoided both the registry issue and > gaps in the existing specifications. > > > > We had a conversation yesterday with our AD (Erik) and Shepherd (Shwetha) > and we agreed to give a try at using those formats for -22. The conclusion > that it looked OK but we need a validation that the new key and signature > formats do not alter the security of the spec. > IMHO it can be more clear to define in options a security policy name defined by the 6LR, so the security cases of this draft can be attached to per policy. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 4:26 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert= [email protected]> wrote: > On the side, It appears that the key representations are typically of > length 8n +1. Considering that IPv6 ND aligns its options at 8n bytes, it > would make sense to start a byte ahead like this, don’t you think? > Yes makes sense when the reserved1 is not fully used or zeros, but if used then having another reserved is ok also, Best regards, AB
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
