Re: Protocol Drafts - What's different.

James Kempf wrote:
>>      mobike-protocol, addrmgmt: Do not work with NATs.
>>
>>=> and nothing will be done to change this if the WG still believes
>>interoperability with NATs is not useful.
>>
> 
> 
> Is that really what the WG believes? Given that the base IKEv2 protocol
> includes NAT support, it seems a little strange to exclude it in MOBIKE.
> (Please, no comments about the immorality of NATs. Living in America, I have
> to suffer enough of that kind of stuff from the current USG.).

Francis said "_if_ the WG still believes".

Anyway, I think our meeting in Seoul plus discussions on
the list seem to say that people *do* care about NATs.

But the issue may be more about what we can do than what we
want to do. I'm not sure we fully understand the interaction
between mobike and nat-t yet. Or at least I do not personally
feel that understand it well enough. I hope that Tero and
Francis can talk about this in the meeting.

--Jari