Re: Disposition of the IKEv2 ID_KEY_ID type

["Mohan Parthasarathy" <mohanp@sbcglobal.net>]

 > 
> >  > 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 

Yes, that's what i meant.

> is not used to identity users in the same way as, say, RFC822 names, 
> it may or may not be appropriate.
> 
Hmm.. i thought that the email thread did discuss the current uses and the
general usefulness of it. Perhaps, we need a separate consensus test for it ?

-mohan



> Steve