Re: [MEXT] EXTENDED [WGLC] RFC 3775 bis / draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis

["Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at earthlink.net>]

Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> > It is more relevant in the context of 3776 or 4877.  Adding this
> > reference even in the Informative section is not required.
> >     
>
> ....
> Even if you are against the use of IPsec/IKE with MIPv6, this is the
> security mechanism used by the protocol. And providing informational
> pointers in the spec to possible solutions to support
>
>  - correct use of IKE with MIPv6
>  - efficient use of IPsec for protection of tunneled data
>
> is useful. It's not fair to keep saying that MIPv6 does not work with
> IPsec/IKE and in the meantime prevent efforts to clarify the
> interactions between the protocols to be added to the specs.
>
> That been said, I think I have argued enough on that aspect. I'll let
> Charles capture the thoughts of the working group and decide what to do.
>
>
>   

Well, if I have to -- but more better would be to have the working
group establish the resolution with consensus gauged by the WG chairs.
I'm in the mode of avoiding controversy on these points :-)

Regards,
Charlie P.