Secure DHCPv6 Using CGAs
draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6-07

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    dhc mailing list <dhcwg@ietf.org>,
    dhc chair <dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Secure DHCPv6 Using CGAs' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Secure DHCPv6 Using CGAs'
  (draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6-07.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6/


Technical Summary: 

   This document specifies a new security mechanism for DHCPv6 based
   Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs).

Working Group Summary: 

   This document was first presented to the DHC working group in
   August of 2010.  There was significant interest in the document at
   that time, and it was reviewed by several key DHC participants,
   myself included.

   At the time my feeling about the document was that it lacked
   clarity and might not be implementable; I also didn't feel
   comfortable that the document had been vetted by anybody with
   expertise in security other than the authors.  At my urging, the
   authors sought review from Stephen Kent and the security
   directorate, and updated the document to address their comments.

   I still wasn't happy with the document, and other work intervened,
   so it languished for a while, finally passing last call with fairly
   limited support but no opposition in July of 2012.

   Because I still wasn't happy with the document (I felt it lacked
   clarity) I worked with Sheng at the summer IETF to address the
   problems I saw in it, and we managed to do a pretty good rewrite to
   address my concerns.

   The document at this point is pretty solid, although I think it
   will benefit from IESG review.  I wish we'd gotten broader
   participation during the working group last call, but it's a
   difficult document, and getting the review we did was hard
   enough--several people who reviewed it in 2011 didn't remember in
   2012 that they'd reviewed it.  I think the work is important, so
   I'd rather advance it with the support we had than drop it and lose
   the work.

Document Quality: 

   I'm not aware of any existing implementations.  The people who
   reviewed the document are mentioned in the acknowledgements
   section.

Personnel: 

   Ted Lemon is the document shepherd.  Ralph Droms is the responsible
   AD.

RFC Editor Note

  (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)

IRTF Note

  (Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)

IESG Note

  (Insert IESG Note here or remove section)

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)