Re: [anonsec] Dan's comments (Re: Connection Latching draft review (draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-04.txt))

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 3:42 PM -0600 1/14/08, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 04:18:03PM -0500, Stephen Kent wrote:
>>  Nico & Dan,
>>
>>  the SPD has always been a persistent database. the newly added PAD
>>  also is persistent. It's the SAD that is transient, i.e., need not
>
>Had I gotten this wrong?  No.  Dan may not be totally up to speed with
>RFC4301 terminology, but I wouldn't dismiss what he has to say on
>account of that.

since, as I said, the SPD has ALWAYS been defined as persistent, this 
misunderstanding is not attributable to a lack of familiarity with 
4301.

>  > have any entries unless SAs have been created, and those entries
>>  vanish when the SAs they represent vanish. The notion of dynamic
>>  modification of the SPD is a relatively new concept, not part of the
>>  original design, but not ruled out by it. Also note that the
>>  de-correlated SPD model introduced in 4301 works very well for a
>>  persistent database, but could be costly to maintain if the SPD is
>>  frequently updated.
>
>Are you asking that the connection latching I-D address how to perform
>dynamic updates of a de-correlated SPD?

no. I was just noting the most recent (2 years old) text supporting 
the fact that the SPD was not nominally viewed as dynamic.

Steve
_______________________________________________