Re: issue 6: scope of SA changes

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Separate IKE SAs are IMHO the simplest way to go, 
   considering that 
   
   - I think that real-world MOBIKE deployments will not use this 
     kind of functionality anyway, or at least it will be extremely 
     rare in the near future. 
   
=> I exactly believe the opposite. IMHO this is because you think
about mobility and I think about multi-homing and SCTP...

   - In many of those rare cases where different treatment is needed, 
     it can be handled adequately by creating several IKE SAs.
   
=> following this argument we can close the MOBIKE WG (:-).

   - This simplifies the protocol somewhat (e.g., no need to treat 
     those addresses differently for RR purposes).
   
=> I don't understand (in fact I understand but only by refering
to mobility needs :-).

   - If the remaining cases (where the ability to have only a single 
     IKE SA would provide substantial user-visible benefits) become
     more important e.g. five years from now, we can do something
     about them then.
     
=> multi-homing is already 5 year late, please don't add 5 other
years just because the problem doesn't interest you.

Regards

[email protected]