RE: [netlmm] Issue: Auth Option support

> The issue was related to the use of MUST clause in specifying
> the IPSec requirement for Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol. Alper
> was suggesting that we relax that requirement and potentially
> leave a room for Auth Option support in future.

Actually, I didn't mean it specifically for Auth Option. It can be anything.
Given that the security is handled by a separate protocol, why lock it down
to "IPsec", when some other protocol (Auth Option being one example) cannot
be used.

> But, as most people agreed and as supported by Jari, this can

My understanding was the opposite, especially about Jari's statement.

> always be changed in future when the support for new security
> mechanisms such as Auth Option are defined for Proxy Mobile IPv6
> and that specific document can always modify this requirement.
> So, no changes will be made to the document on this issue.

What if Auth Option is good enough as written?
What if a document in another SDO defines the alternative security
mechanism?

For the type of interop we are seeking in IETF, "MUST implement" is good
enough. "MUST use" is not necessary.

Alper

> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm