Re: issue 34 proposal

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   >=> 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.

=> I am not so sure...

   But can you explain more about why you
   think 1bis is better than the other options?

=> because someone who wants to deal with a NAT loosing its state
will simply implement the ESP update as it is recommend by the IKEv2
spec, with or without MOBIKE.

   Or is your argument that it is a smaller impact to
   NAT-T than the other options?
   
=> it has no impact, it is just a profile. It says if you have both
MOBIKE and NAT-T then you must have a good NAT-T, not the minimal one.

Regards

[email protected]

PS: BTW an advantage of 1bis is it doesn't mismatch with current NAT-T
recommendations, i.e., ESP update and >=2 can be a bit hard to live
together.