On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 08:10:49PM -0500, Peter Memishian wrote: > > > Going back to what this thread was about: what characters to allow in > > secobj names? > > > > 1. Are we allowing just alphanumeric and '_' for the secure object > > names? What about '-' and '.' which are already used explicitly by NWAM? > > I think it's OK to allow those if it'd be useful to NWAM. > > > 2. What's the plan of action for secobj names that will be invalidated > > by the implementation of (1)? > > It's only really an issue for upgrade, right? If the user has to re-input > their key in the case where their ESSID used characters that are invalid > for a secobj, that doesn't seem so bad, at least based on where we are > with Indiana these days.
How about a free-form annotation for secobjs such that the old name becomes the annotation and the new name is randomly generated (OK, or a simple transformation of the old name)? Then NWAM could still match secobjs by checking the annotation. Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
