Why do we still have the stateful/stateless JP variants?

[EskoDijk]

Having the 2 variants seemed nice in the beginning, but:

• it turns out to be complex to support basically 2 different JP protocols
• having 2 options is hurtful for adoption and (future) interoperability
• cBRSKI/BRSKI is already suffering from high complexity which blocks adoption. (Developers not able to easily understand the specs are far more likely to shove it aside.) Many options is a key reason of the complexity.
• security and testability can also be impacted by having more options (i.e. each combination of options is less tested)

[EskoDijk]

Issue was discussed in the ANIMA weekly calls: decided to keep both variants. A particular "profile standard" could pick one of the specific variants for adoption.
Created #64 to review the text on mandatory-to-implement again, soften the wording, and leave the selection of variant up to a profile-standard that defines a particular IoT profile.