How about IKE_SUP or IKE_SUPP (for IKE_SUPPLEMENTARY)? On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 at 21:14, Tommy Pauly <tpa...@apple.com> wrote: > > 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 <smyslov.i...@gmail.com> 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 > > IPsec@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
