Re: [btns] Minor connection-latch problem in AUTH48

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Tue, 20 October 2009 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: btns@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: btns@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED4F28C137 for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VrRyM95vjOxI for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D594D28C119 for <btns@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n9KIIk3c012849 for <btns@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:18:46 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id n9KIIkt8052458 for <btns@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:18:46 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n9KI7NI2003923; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n9KI7N4c003922; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <20091020180723.GJ892@Sun.COM>
References: <20091015221608.GC907@Sun.COM> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C2A67DF98@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <20091016203953.GQ892@Sun.COM> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C2A67DFC1@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <20091016211652.GV892@Sun.COM> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C2A67DFD7@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <20091019164014.GF892@Sun.COM> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C648C9F4D@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <20091019221410.GN892@Sun.COM> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C648C9FA4@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C648C9FA4@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: "btns@ietf.org" <btns@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [btns] Minor connection-latch problem in AUTH48
X-BeenThere: btns@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Better-Than-Nothing-Security Working Group discussion list <btns.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns>, <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/btns>
List-Post: <mailto:btns@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns>, <mailto:btns-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:18:42 -0000

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 09:30:08AM -0700, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> So how about:
> 
> Such an implementation may require an additional transient state in
> the connection latch state machine: a "LARVAL" state, so to speak, to
> which the connection is latched pending establishment of the SA. Such
> a "LARVAL" state is not described further herein.

"transient" seems confusable/redundant to me: all these states are
transient, in a way, since a latch is never permanently in one state.

In the case of the CLOSED state I used the word "fleeting"; "ephemeral"
would work just as well.  I will use the word "fleeting", since I've
already used it to the same effect.  I'll send an updated .xml file to
the RFC-Editor later today.

Thanks!

Nico
--