[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis

To: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
Subject: Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:44:58 -0600
Cc: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: <16480.41328.206013.705605@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Mail-followup-to: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>,mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
References: <200403200415.i2K4FlQU007773@thunk.east.sun.com> <p06100407bc8210eadd2d@[63.202.92.152]> <p06020401bc854e7aeba7@[10.84.130.85]> <16480.9936.57483.798886@fireball.acr.fi> <p06020401bc8612e45d2f@[128.89.89.75]> <7396.1080069681@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <16480.41328.206013.705605@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:43:28PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> writes:
> 
>  Michael> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Why wouldn't an "account
>  Michael> name" be represented as ID_RFC822_ADDR?
> 
> Because not all accounts have English names?

Subverting ID_KEY_ID to carry UTF-8 does not fix any I18N shortcommings
of subjectAltName.

I18N has to be dealt with, but stuffing possibly unstructured UTF08 text
into an OCTET STRING in context specific ways isn't going to be very
useful.

I suggest that I18N be addressed separately and that ID_KEY_ID remain as
it is: opaque.  Does this mean that ID_KEY_ID is useless, that noone
knows what to really use it for?  Is it used much?  Can its semantics be
changed?

Nico
--

References:
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
- Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
  - From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Question with Using AES CCM Mode With IPsec ESP
Next by Date: Re: Temporary version of the new IKEv2 draft
Previous by thread: Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
Next by thread: Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread