Re: Disposition of the IKEv2 ID_KEY_ID type

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 9:42 AM -0700 4/7/04, Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
	<SNIP>

>  > If there is a desire for such a new identity type, it will always be
>>  possible to define a new type in another RFC.  But given that IKEv2 is
>>  currently in last call, it doesn't seem like it's the time now to try to
>>  add new identity types....
>>
>>  Is this an outcome that most people on the list could live with?
>>
>I am fine with this.
>
>But note that this discussion came out of an issue that was
>raised against 2401bis. Steve later clarified that contents of ID_KEY_ID
>would be added (clarified) as another selector in 2401bis. Perhaps, 
>you were planning
>to summarize under a different subject ?
>
>-mohan
>

ID_KEY_ID is not a selector. It is a type of IKE ID and thus could be 
a candidate for the Name selector. Since we have decided that this ID 
is not used to identity users in the same way as, say, RFC822 names, 
it may or may not be appropriate.

Steve