Re: issue 34 proposal

>=> I am for making the standard mechanism for IKEv2/NAT-T (update
>by ESP) simply mandatory in MOBIKE environments (option 1bis).
>This is not against the charter (no new things for NAT-T) and
>can be considered as a MOBIKE profile compatible with the
>"mainstream" IKEv2.
>
I agree that none of the alternatives break our
charter. But can you explain more about why you
think 1bis is better than the other options? Or
is your argument that it is a smaller impact to
NAT-T than the other options?

>PS: I don't buy the hardware argument (nor such hardware :-).
>  
>
Heh :-)

--Jari