I agree that IKE_AUX can be easily confused with IKE_AUTH. Similarly, IKE_INT looks a lot like the INIT from IKE_SA_INIT.
I don't necessarily love IKE_PRE_AUTH, but it still seems preferable to the other options. You could also spell out "intermediate" to have IKE_INTERMEDIATE. This is still shorter than other existing exchange types, like IKE_SESSION_RESUME. Thanks, Tommy > On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:07 AM, Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm going to update IKE_AUX draft (in particular - change the way > it is authenticated based on recent discussion with Scott). > > I recall that there were some complaints that the name IKE_AUX > is not good because it can easily be mixed up with IKE_AUTH > Actually, the phonetically close name was selected intentionally > to show that these exchanges are related. However, I'm not a native > speaker and not always can realize how good or bad this similarity > sounds for a native ear. > > So, my question to WG - do we need to change the name? If yes, > then to what? Possible variants - IKE_INT (intermediate), IKE_PRE_AUTH. > Something else? > > Regards, > Valery. > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
