RFC 9099 reference would be good - it has much-much bigger scope.
", "time": "2023-07-27T22:50:41Z"}, {"author": "Jen Linkova", "text": "I think the draft does refer to 9099
", "time": "2023-07-27T22:51:28Z"}, {"author": "Jen Linkova", "text": "already
", "time": "2023-07-27T22:51:32Z"}, {"author": "Tobias Fiebig", "text": "(deleted)
", "time": "2023-07-27T22:53:01Z"}, {"author": "Tobias Fiebig", "text": "I am not yet sure though, where it does so much more than 9099, though.
", "time": "2023-07-27T22:54:16Z"}, {"author": "Tobias Fiebig", "text": "but that might just be me.
", "time": "2023-07-27T22:54:29Z"}, {"author": "Nicola Rustignoli", "text": "The approach presented has some resemblances to what SCION can do (adding the EPIC extension), however SCION adds a lot more in terms of trust between different elements of the network
\nhttps://netsec.ethz.ch/publications/papers/Legner_Usenix2020_EPIC.pdf