An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers Version 2 (ORCHIDv2)
RFC 7343

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>,
    hip mailing list <hipsec@ietf.org>,
    hip chair <hip-chairs@tools.ietf.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.