The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
Resource Identifiers'
(draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-06.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are
Dear Ray,
Thank you again.
>A rather exaggerated claim IHMO. You may have tied a L2 address to an
>IPv6 address via NDP, but L2 addresses are generally not tightly coupled to
>nodes. An attacker could let NDP complete normally (including any
>signatures/authorizations you like) and then >tar
Hosnieh,
I have read your draft. And I have the following comments.
SEND already offers what you are looking for. It has the Timestamp and the
Signature options which are attached to the DNP messages. So, the new benefits
of your approach are not clear to me.
I agree with the claim that CGA is co
inline.
Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> Dear Jeremy,
> Thank you so much for your review and your question.
>
>> In reading your ID, I didn't see a mechanism for ensuring a central
> certification authority like in PKI (eg a CA) like used in SeND/CGA. How
> can hosts trust the signed NDP messages? Or
