Re: Closing some less controversial issues

I agree with closing these issues. Joe: I believe
transport mode is useful too, but I'd like to make
us do the tunnel mode first, as it fits our primary
scenario, the VPN roadwarrior case. Francis: Yes,
it would be very good if you could come up with the
the document that you mentioned.

--Jari

[email protected] wrote:
> I think we should close some of the less controversial 
> issues on the issues list. These have been discussed on the 
> mailing list and meetings, and I think we have a rough
> consensus on them. 
> 
> If you disagree, please tell so within a week or so.
> 
> Issue 2: "Is simultaneous movement of both parties supported?"
> 
>    "No; both parties can be mobile, but simultaneous 
>    movement is not supported."
> 
> Issue 9: "Does MOBIKE require RFC2401bis?"
> 
>    "IKEv2 requires RFC2401bis, and MOBIKE requires IKEv2."
> 
> Issue 7: "Do we support tunnel mode only, or tunnel mode first and
> transport later, or both by same document?"
> 
>    "First document will consider only tunnel mode."
> 
> Issue 13: "Does switching from IPv4 to IPv6 or vice versa work?
> Presumably only for tunnel mode?" 
> 
>    "Changing from IPv4 to IPv6 or vice versa should work 
>    for tunnel mode at least."
> 
> Cheers,
> Pasi (as issues list maintainer)
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> 
>