[anonsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-02.txt
Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams) Mon, 17 September 2007 20:24 UTC
From: Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:24:52 -0500
Subject: [anonsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-02.txt
In-Reply-To: <20070914174133.GF1920@Sun.COM>
References: <E1IVM2z-0008D7-TP@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
<20070914174133.GF1920@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <20070917202451.GB3328@Sun.COM>
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:41:33PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > I'd appreciate some feedback on this version of the connection latching > I-D. > > - In particular I'm looking for feedback on section 2.1, whether the > proposed modification to the child SA authorization process is > reasonable. (Note: the child SA authorization process is modified > only when connection latching is used; see also the note in section > 2.3 about a PAD entry flag to preserve traditional semantics.) I've found a way around that. I've submitted -03 just now. > - Neither section 2.1 nor 2.2 talks about when to initiate SAs. But it > should be obvious that the right time is when a latch is initiated. Fixed. > - Section 3 doesn't say much about the SPD. > > In particular, when an application requests that traffic be PROTECTED > that would otherwise have been BYPASSed (or when a locally privileged > app requests the opposite) then the SPD should be temporarily > modified accordingly. This should be described in detail. Sections 2.1 and 3 now both deal with this properly, methinks. Comments welcome.
- [anonsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-btns-connection-l… Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- [anonsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-btns-connection-l… Nicolas Williams
- [anonsec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-btns-connection-l… Nicolas Williams