Re: draft-ietf-rfc2401bis-01: editorial nits

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 9:00 +0100 3/3/04, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    (2) On page 33: "Note: The source address that appears in the encapsulating
>        tunnel header MUST be the one that was negotiated during the SA
>        establishment process."
>    
>        Should this be the destination address, not the source address?
>
>=> even fixed (:-) this statement is a bit too strong for MOBIKE which
>is supposed to allow to update the address(es). I can't propose a better
>wording but obviously one is needed...
>
>Thanks
>
>Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

Francis,

Maybe you didn't see my response, which said that the text was 
outdated and that there need not be such a constraint.

Steve