confirming consensus on issues from Paris

Jari Arkko writes:
> Issue 22: NAT preventation name. The current name
> of the payload is NAT_PREVENTION, which has led
> people to believe that we're actually disabling NATs.
> Unfortunately, we can only achieve the detection of
> a NAT and refuse to operate over such a link. The
> proposal is to change the name of the payload (and
> the corresponding error) to more descriptive ones.
> I believe we can leave the details to the editor,
> but names such as NO_NAT_POLICY and DISALLOW_NATS
> have been suggested.

Those names are not very good, but as I cannot think any better...

> Issue 35: Version numbers -- the proposal that we
> came up with in the meeting was that if we move the
> mobike-supported negotiation to the second pair of
> messages (see issue 37), then the length of the messages
> is not such an issue. As a result, we can use plain payload
> without a version number.

The issue 37 will solve this problem, so we can close that if issue 37
decides to move notifications to IKE_AUTH message.

> Issue 36: Unacceptable addresses. There are cases
> where the initiator does not know which one of the
> retransmitted requests was really the one seen by the
> responder and resulted in the unacceptable address
> error. Pasi's solution for this is to send a new request
> in this (corner) case.

Now when I have had some more time to think about this, I think Pasi's
solution is the best. My original proposal (include the addresses in
the notify) might have some issues with NATs, so I think the Pasi's
solution is better.

> Issue 37: Move MOBIKE supported notification from
> IKEv2_SA_INIT to AUTH exchange. Lessens the
> fragmentation problem, and allows also per-use
> mobike usage policy.

Moving the notification solves the issue 35, so I think we should move
the notifications.
-- 
[email protected]