OK. In that case I would add to the initial registry 4 - locally meaningful name
In our product, the gateways have "names" that appear both in the GUI and the configuration files (and logs). It's easier for them to fetch another gateway's "object" by name than by IP address. Such a name could be ASCII or UTF-8. ________________________________________ From: Tero Kivinen [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 13:02 To: Yoav Nir Cc: [email protected] Subject: [IPsec] Some comments about redirect Yoav Nir writes: > Section 10 sets up an IANA registry for identity types. Couldn't we > just reuse the "IKEv2 Identification Payload ID Types"? There's > already IPv4, IPv6 and FQDN, and additionally KEY_ID for locally > meaningful names and a range of private use IP addresses. Why set up > a new registry for the same thing? I do not think we want reuse IKEv2 Identification Payload ID types for this, as then we again create lots of values which are not defined (i.e. what does it mean to send ID_DER_ASN1_GN during redirect). I prefer to have separate registry for it. I would actually like to have separate registries for the two different use cases there is, as not all values are usable in both cases. Creating new IANA registries has small initial overhead, and if there will not be any more allocations there is no more overhead for having its own registry compared to sharing IKEv2 one. On the other hand if there will be new allocations then even better if we have separate registry for them so we do not mess up other registries. -- [email protected] Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. Email secured by Check Point _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
