Paul Wouters <[email protected]> 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.
I don't agree that it is anonymous. It says that the identity was not
authenticated, it didn't say that no identity was provided.
Clearly: the identity can't be trusted and can't be used in anyway.
So, given that, how does one look up acceptable TSx in the PAD?
I think that the opportunistic encryption use case given can not make any
sense without reference to the PAD.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
pgpNJfEqtZwt_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
