Re: issue 19 -- same addresses for both directions?

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   How do you folks feel about this? Please post your
   comments by Friday, June 3rd.
   
=> note I consider that I am not bound by your short delays...

It seems we lost the basic idea: the only critical thing is the destination
address the peer uses to send packets to us, and we really need to control
it, this is why the option 3 for issue 20 is *not* the right one.
About issue 19, I believe:
 - an SA pair MUST be created with the same address pair (just to avoid
   to provide a way to do something else)
 - an SA pair SHOULD use the same address pair (this doesn't close the door
   and avoid a spurious requirement).

Regards

[email protected]

PS: to come back to issue 20, it doesn't exist in my address set management
framework because it uses the option 2 (use primary address) initialized
by the addresses IKE runs over (i.e., without crazy filtering on the path
the address pair is proved to work by IKE itself :-). BTW I don't provide
a way to use different address pair per way, only per SA pair (which IMHO
is enough to support SCTP[-like] contexts).