Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6
RFC 4866

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: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    mipshop mailing list <mipshop@ietf.org>, 
    mipshop chair <mipshop-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Enhanced Route Optimization for 
         Mobile IPv6' to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6 '
   <draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Mobility for IP: Performance, 
Signaling and Handoff Optimization Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley and Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-04.txt

Technical Summary
 
This document specifies Enhanced Route Optimization, an amendment to
route optimization in base Mobile IPv6. Enhanced Route Optimization
secures a mobile node's home address against impersonation through an
interface identifier that is cryptographically and verifiably bound
[6] to the public component of the mobile node's public/private-key
pair. Enhanced Route Optimization further allows mobile and
correspondent nodes to resume bidirectional communications in
parallel with pursuing a care-of address test. The latency of the
home and care-of address tests are therefore eliminated in most
cases. The use of cryptographically generated home addresses also
mitigates the threat of impersonators that can interpose on the home
address test and thereby facilitate longer binding lifetimes. This
leads to increased security and a reduction in signaling overhead.
 
Working Group Summary
 
There were no adverse issues to report.
 
Protocol Quality
 
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

There is no information currently available on implementations
or any vendors plans. The document was reviewed for the IESG by Mark
Townsley. Vijay Devarapalli is the document proto Shepherd.