Re: Issue 23: Payload type for addresses (was: Review of draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-00)

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   But we could of course promote ADDITIONAL_ADDRESS from a
   Notification to a real "top-level" payload type. Any comments
   from others about this?
   
=> I believe we should keep Notifications because this allows to
declare additional addresses in the second exchange. This can be used
for instance for the home registration BU/BA protection in MIPv6:
IKE runs over the care-of address but the SA pair is a transport mode
with the home address in the source traffic selector. The care-of address
is authorized because IKE exchanges include an implicit return routability
check, the home address is usually explicitly authorized through configuration
and/or the mobile node certificate, and the transport mode in Mobike I-D
applies...

Regards

[email protected]