Jari Arkko wrote: > > > To conclude, dst.hdr is in RFC, > > the new proposal an individual draft so I'd say it could be > > something to consider for a second generation of Mobile IPv6, > > perhaps. > > Just a clarifying question to make sure I have correctly understood > the current situation with the HAO: the DO header is in the basic > IPv6 RFCs. However, the format of a specific DO that can be > used to carry the Home Address, HAO, is defined in the MIPv6 > I-D. I'm asking this because we'd very much like to publish the > cellular host draft as an RFC soon, and in order to require the > use of the HAO we need not just a resolution to the security > worries, but also a reference to some RFC that defines the HAO. > Unless I'm mistaken, we currently don't have such an RFC anywhere. > Or?
True, though Mobile IPv6 seems to have a process and timetable to achieve the same goal and also be in last stages of the process. HAO was presented to ipng as a mandatory feature before IPv6 was finalized and it was designed to fill a missing piece of IPv6 functionality to support mobility. At that time it was endorsed by the ipng wg and it ended up in the MIPv6 draft. It has been pretty stable ever since. The only reason it is not yet in RFC is due to non-HAO-format related issues. > Jari BR, -Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
