On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Michael Richardson wrote:
Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Paul ps. i also still prefer AUTH_NONE over "NULL AUTH", as to me NULL
>> looks more like an error while "none" conveys intent.
> I remember it. However I'm still waiting for other's opinions on this.
> Naming is not a problem.
I prefer AUTH_NONE over "NULL AUTH".
Still, that doesn't convey enough intent; AUTH_DIDNTWANTTO, or something
like that might say it better, but that's a mouthful, so I can live with
AUTH_NONE if we can't do better.
AUTH_ANON ? Although I think AUTH_NONE is more in line with how we name
things.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
