Re: Design draft role, implementation requirements (Was: latest draft snapshot)

Bora Akyol wrote:

>I am fine with that, the problem is that this framework document
>is not sufficiently concise in the requirements area
>so that I can go ahead and write code off of.
>  
>
Yes. We are not there yet, its in the future protocol doc!

>Specifically, it is hard to judge from this document, what is a MUST,
>what is a SHOULD, and what is purely optional and esoteric.
>
>Maybe we can add a final section to the document summarizing the
>requirements, I would be happy to contribute to that.
>  
>
Thanks for offering to contribute! I can see two potential
items where additional contributions like this would be useful:

- A summary table at the end of the design document that
  lists the design choices and features that are needed.
  This is just a list or a table; not something that you can
  write code from. But it could help people grasp easier
  what conclusions the document has reached. Something
  like:

      - Indicating support for MOBIKE: Use FOO feature from IKEv2.
      - Storing peer addresses: Store multiple, not just one
      - ...

- Another protocol spec proposal. We do have already some,
  but additional ones are very welcome too.

--Jari