RE: Adding revised identities to IKEv2

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

Paul,

>>  I think we do a disservice to clients if we just through up our 
>>hands and say it's too hard.
>
>If you are talking about IKEv2, I fully agree. If you are talking 
>about IKEv1, I would disagree because many vendors have in good 
>faith tried to interpret what little we have given them and come up 
>with radically different answers. It would be wrong for us to, at 
>this late date, say that some implementations are non-conformant.

Agreed. We need to distinguish between what people did previously 
given the lack of guidance, and what we would like to do going 
forward.

>
>>  As a nominal co-author for IKEv2, I will try to focus on that part 
>>of the doc, which I have not done previously, and work to 
>>coordinate it with the PKI profile, to make sure we remove the 
>>ambiguities. OK?
>
>Absolutely! Obviously, I would like to help. After Brian and Eric's 
>draft gets a bit of discussion on the list (ahem), I think we would 
>be in a good place to set down a small number of MUSTs that everyone 
>can understand.

OK