Re: Summary of revised identity changes

[Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>]

Paul Hoffman / VPNC writes:
 > What isn't in the current proposal is hashes of bare keys, but that's 
 > easy to add. If we do, you still don't need IDs: the hash of the key 
 > is the ID. Does the WG want bare public keys as part of this?

   I'd like to see this functionality preserved, yes.
   If only it had been the *only* kind of public key
   identity... we'd probably see a lot less use of
   password based legacy auth.

	    Mike