Christian, Thanks for your quick re-spin of this draft. I have reviewed this latest version, and it addresses all of the issues/questions I had raised. Thanks, again! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Vogt [mailto:chvogt@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:10 PM > To: Mipshop; ietf@xxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Jari Arkko; Wassim Haddad; Vijay > Devarapalli; Stefano Faccin > Subject: Revised I-D: draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt > > Hello folks, > > we updated draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba according to the comments and > suggestions that Eric Gray posted on the IETF Discussion mailing list > during IETF Last Call. Here is a change log (not including purely > editorial items): > > o Reference to RFC 3972 ("Cryptographically Generated > Addresses") is > now normative. > > o More detailed IANA considerations. > > o Fixed reference to BCP 14, RFC 2119, so that Nit Checker does no > longer complain. > > o Clarified in Section 3.1 that CGAs do not require a public-key > infrastructure, even though they make use of public-key > cryptography. > > o Included intended status ("Proposed Standard") at beginning of > document. > > You can access the revised draft version as well as a diff against the > previous version 02 at: > > http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-03.txt > http://doc.tm.uka.de/2007/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02to03.html > > Best regards, > - Christian > > -- > Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH) > www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/ > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf