Re: Issue 64 - Stephane Beaulieu's commentsondraft-mobike-protocol-04.txt

Stephane Beaulieu wrote:
> > > Section 4.2
> > > 
> > > I don't understand why we need to switch to port 4500 even 
> > > if there is no NAT in the path.  Can someone explain this 
> > > to me?  Or better yet, explain it in the draft?
> 
> > I raised this question also earlier, and the answer was: In case
> > we later move to the path that has a NAT box between, and we 
> > need to enable NAT-T, then we must be on the port 4500 before we 
> > enable NAT-T.  To avoid hassle to do the changing of the port at 
> > that time, we do it in the beginning. It does not hurt at all to 
> > move to port 4500 immediately, if both ends support NAT-T, and 
> > it will make enabling NAT-T very simple when we later in the
> > UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES notice there is NAT between us.
> 
> [SB] Ah.  That makes sense.  Perhaps the reasoning here should be
> documented as well.

The text currently says:	

   To simplify things, implementations that support both this
   specification and NAT Traversal MUST change to port 4500 if the
   correspondent also supports both, even if no NAT was detected
   between them (this way, there is no need to change the ports
   later).

But perhaps the last part could be slightly rephrased. 
How about this?

  "(this way, there is no need to change the ports later if a 
   a NAT is detected on some other path)"

Best regards,
Pasi