Re: issue 1: direct or indirect indicators

Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    >  In your previous mail you wrote:
>    > 
>    >    a separate question but also of interest: 
>    >    - should a peer send an address list in one message or 
>    > individual messages
>    >    (which only contain one address/message)?
>    >      (the address list does not work in a nat environment.)
>    >      answer: both seems to be desired. 
>    > 
>    > => as I don't like the idea to mix MOBIKE and NAT-T I am in 
>    > favor of one message which can be submitted to the 
>    > authorization procedure once and gives less exchanges. Of 
>    > course this doesn't make the one address/message impossible.
>    
>    having an address list in the ike message makes nat handling impossible. 
>    
> => now I see: you speak about the first message when I speak about
> NAT prevention in the first message and address list in the next
> exchange.
> I've already explained this but I used NAT prevention for two purposes:
>  - make the choice between either NAT traversal and MOBIKE clear
>  - inject the peer addresses from the header into a protected space

Right. This is very good.

> BTW the first point is Pasi's idea, and it has the extra advantage
> to be outside of the NAT traversal IPR.

(Lets not assume too much about the IPR coverage. That's a
tricky field. You never know how broad the IPR claims are,
particularly if you consider that not all IPR may be public
yet.)

--Jari