An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, hip mailing list <email@example.com>, hip chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-08.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)' (draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Host Identity Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ted Lemon and Brian Haberman. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis/
Technical Summary: This document specifies an updated Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers format that obsoletes the earlier format defined in [RFC4843]. These identifiers are intended to be used as endpoint identifiers at applications and Application Programming Interfaces (API) and not as identifiers for network location at the IP layer, i.e., locators. They are designed to appear as application layer entities and at the existing IPv6 APIs, but they should not appear in actual IPv6 headers. To make them more like regular IPv6 addresses, they are expected to be routable at an overlay level. Consequently, while they are considered non-routable addresses from the IPv6 layer point-of-view, all existing IPv6 applications are expected to be able to use them in a manner compatible with current IPv6 addresses. The Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers originally defined in [RFC4843] lacked a mechanism for cryptographic algorithm agility. The updated ORCHID format specified in this document removes this limitation by encoding in the identifier itself an index to the suite of cryptographic algorithms in use. Working Group Summary: There is full consensus behind this document. In September 2012, the authors of the draft consulted with Brian Haberman, who was the HIP WG's responsible AD at that point, to make sure the purpose of the draft was clear. Document Quality: As discussed in RFC 6538, there are several implementations of the Experimental HIP specs. At least HIP for Linux and OpenHIP will be updated to comply with the standards-track specs. Personnel: Gonzalo Camarillo is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.