Jitender Arora writes: > 1. I will point the section 5.1 in the introduction itself that way > the purpose and applications of the draft are clear.
After I read the section 5.1 (I skipped most of the other draft as I needed to know first WHY this is needed before I care about HOW it is implemented), and I do not really see enough text there to cause me to read the HOW part. So I would need better and more text about WHY this extension is needed. Why it is important that the IKEv2 SA and Child SA uses different outer addresses? Who is supposed to terminate the IKEv2 SA and who is supposed to terminate the Child SAs. Is this assuming that IKEv2 SA and Child SA are still on the same machine or what? If so, why not just use the IP address of that host for both IKEv2 SA and Child SA? So I think the usage scenarios (WHY part) is much more important than the actual protocol (HOW part), and it should be clear from the beginning. Currently this draft mostly assumes there is problem, but it does not explain why you think the problem actually exists or what the problem is. -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
