>    minSec

Why require this if it is not used? How can including this facilitate
experimentation? I don't understand the need to include this here.

>    implementation decision. However, typical policies may prefer
>    existing entries over new ones, CGAs with a large Sec value over
>    smaller Sec values, and so on.  The issue is briefly discussed in
>    Appendix C.

Not much guidance for Sec value; I don't really understand what this
is to be used for.

-----------

James Kempf: This is a relic of the draft version in which CGA
computation was included within the draft. We will remove it, and the
next sentence, which directs the reader to the CGA RFC.

For the second part: This is discussed in the CGA RFC. This is also a
relic of a previous version, in which CGA computation was discussed in
this draft. We'll remove it.

-----------

Arkko: minSec, is it useful, not much guidance. Why needed?
Background, CGA have small size, defense Tuomas developed sec value
that makes attacks against CGA harder, 0 makes it easy to generate, 1
is harder. Purpose is to limit what is required in terms of
communications with other nodes.

Aura: Against having parameter there from beginning. Should not be
used. CGA spec says you should not have this. Use what address owner
says.

Action Item: Delete text.

-----------

-----------

-----------