Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] MIPv6 - Focus of the security discussion

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:54:50 +1000

> > 
> >      read the sentence again. when i said lets not change it,
> >      i meant lets not change BU as a destination option.
> > 
> >      => It is stil a BU OPTION just a different header
> >      you can still call it a DESTINATION option, like DST-3
> >      for example.
> >      Got it ?
> 
> Huh? i meant protocol 60.
> 
	=> Protocol 60 ? Have a look at Jari's
	draft. I think this will be a good base for the 
	discussion. 

	Hesham

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:02:15 -0700

> "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" wrote:
> 
>      >

do you always twist others' statements and arrive at a point
where others have no clue what you are talking about? all i 
said was BU as an option in the extension header protocol 60 
has been through a lot of interoperability tests. lets not 
change it. lets not move it to a new extension header.

I have read Jari's draft. and I like it. and I prefer his 
application specific protection (solution 4).

Vijay