Fwd: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution

[Rodney Thayer <rodney@tillerman.nu>]

I like this.  What would you want the cert to have in it?
(Again, all I'm asking is how you want people to decide which cert to use
given this payload...)

>Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:42:07 -0700
>From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
>Organization: RedCreek Communications
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; U)
>To: "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
>CC: ipsec@tis.com
>Subject: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution
>Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
>
>Michael C. Richardson wrote:
>> 
>>   I have a better suggestion:
>>         ID_LIST
>>   and just put multiple ID payloads inside... why complicate things?
>
>Actually, we considered this - or something similar to this. Instead, we
>discussed just sending multiple ID payloads in the message. The
>arguments against (that we were able to come up with) pertain to the
>complexity of the parsing mechanism, and to the added overhead of the
>payload headers. Your technique simplifies the parsing mechanism by
>forcing the grouping of the payloads, but doesn't eliminate the
>additional headers. I guess for relatively infrequent exchanges, though,
>the additional bits would not be as strong a consideration.
>
>Hmmm...
>

---

Follow-Ups:

• multiple payloads via "ID_LIST"
• From: "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution
• Next by Date: multiple payloads via "ID_LIST"
• Prev by thread: Commit Bit (Was RE: issues with IKE that need resolution )
• Next by thread: multiple payloads via "ID_LIST"
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread