I agree - let's move on.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 3:25 AM
> To: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C310:EXCH]
> Cc: Michael Thomas; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated
>
>
> Glenn Morrow wrote:
>
> > I thought it was already decided that a CN MUST respond with a rate
> > limited "lack of resources" response to the request for route
> > optimization.
>
>
> Yes!
>
> > If this is the case then it seems to follow that the
> > processing of the HOA for this purpose MUST also be
> supported if the HOA
> > is to be a part of the request to do route optimization -
> but only to
> > this extent.
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> However, I believe this thread is not about the support of
> HAO with RO --
> it is more about the support of HAO with IPsec and triangular routing.
> Folks are complaining that there is not sufficient reason to
> have a MUST
> for that special case. And I'm starting to agree...
>
> Jari
>
>
>
