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

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Mon, 19 October 2009 22:25 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 B31193A687E for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.540, 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 bINTBc3328PJ for <btns@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0CD3A635F for <btns@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n9JMPWpj003754 for <btns@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:25:32 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 n9JMPWRv062562 for <btns@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:25:32 -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 n9JMEAtV003391; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:14:10 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n9JMEAfg003390; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:14:10 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:14:10 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: "Laganier, Julien" <julienl@qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <20091019221410.GN892@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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1C648C9F4D@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: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:25:26 -0000

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 02:59:31PM -0700, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > OK, this way the changes are much smaller and localized -- only the
> > description of CREATE_CONNECTION_LATCH() changes, to:
> 
> Hmm. Better, but somehow I'd rather take the 2 last paragraphs about
> the "larval" state completely out, because right now it IMHO says
> either too much or too less. It's not precise enough to tell an
> implementer who hasn't followed that discussion what to do yet it
> outlines at alternative to the key manager establishing the SA
> straight and the ULP latching the connection on the SA.

I really want to leave the MAY in, as well as the note that that implies
a state that we're not describing.  I'm willing to remove the
parenthetical note, since that's really informative of something that
implementors, who chose to implement that MAY, would figure out on their
own anyways.

> If you want to keep the "larval" text in, I've did some wordsmithing
> below that you might want to consider:

I can't tell what's particularly different in your text.  You did split
a sentence, but I think I'll just re-write that sentence this way:

"Such an implementation may require an additional state in the
connection latch state machine: a "LARVAL" state, so to speak, that is
not described herein."

I think the colon helps more than either the comma I had written
originally, or than a period.

Nico
--