Re: Closing some less controversial issues

I agree to close all this. But i don't understand your conclusion on Issue 9.
I am assuming the answer is yes.

-mohan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:13 PM
Subject: [Mobike] Closing some less controversial issues



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