Re: Re: comments on draft-dupont-mobike-transport-00.txt

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   >    but is the proposal to limit this function to
   >    those two examples, or be more generic?
   >    
   > => the proposal is to do nothing today to solve the issue, i.e.,
   > to put transport mode stuff out of the immediate scope of Mobike.

   The draft talks about how MOBIKE can be used with MIPv6 (BU) and SCTP
   which are both transport mode SAs.

=> perhaps you are confused because you've forgotten that neither MIPv6
(BU) or SCTP need address changes for these transport mode SAs?
For instance MIPv6 (BU) uses the home address... And SCTP uses
different streams for different paths.

   I don't know where in the document it says
   that transport mode stuff should be put outside of MOBIKE.

=> the document puts the transport mode stuff outside of MOBIKE.
Can you propose some text to explain why? (I believe it was known
but obviously a rationale is needed).

   Also, the charter includes SCTP also.

=> yes and this is a good thing. But the SCTP model doesn't require
address changes, it only requires multiple integrated address management
(integrated = as a set vs. one by one).

   So, are you saying that this should be changed ?

=> no but direct address changes for transport mode are so complex
that their study should be postponed at least...

Thanks

[email protected]