Re: issue 34 proposal

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > PS: please don't forget that NAT traversal is
   > explicitely outside
   > the WG charter.
   
   I don't know what this means.

=> simply: In particular, the WG shall NOT develop mechanisms for the
following functions:

o IP address changes done by third parties (NATs, firewalls etc). In
  particular, MOBIKE shall not replace or modify IKEv2 NAT traversal
  function. MOBIKE handles IP address changes initiated by one of the
  endpoints of the security associations. NAT traversal handles other
  address changes. MOBIKE should not be tightly coupled with the NAT
  traversal function, but it is necessary to specify in which cases
  (if any) they can be used together, and how they interact.

So this discussion itself is in the charter (last statement) but
some proposed solutions can be outside.

   Do you mean to say MOBIKE should not care about NATs ?

=> I mean it should care only inside the limits described in the charter.

   The "issue 34" is
   about a specific case of dynamic updates which also
   has an impact on PATH_TEST messages. So, just arguing
   about dynamic updates alone does not get us anywhere.
   
=> one can consider than #34 is about the interaction between MOBIKE
and NAT-T in cases they are used together.
   
Regards

[email protected]

PS: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mobike-charter.html