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

["Laganier, Julien" <julienl at qualcomm.com>]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 02:13:13PM -0700, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> > Nicolas Williams wrote
> > > Perhaps the WG would say that we should REQUIRE that the key
> manager
> > > initiate IKE/child SAs ahead of any triggering packet as a
> > > simplification of the model (then we don't need a LARVAL state).
> But I
> > > could certainly see implementors not wanting to do that (for one it
> > > makes the CREATE_CONNECTION_LATCH() call slow).
> >
> > I think this is the external behavior that we want to capture. The
> > specifics of how a given implementation achieves that need not to be
> > specified in the RFC as long as the conceptual behavior is clear and
> > guarantees interoperability.
> 
> Let me re-think the text.  Perhaps I'll simply add a note that an
> implementor whose key manager does not immediately initiake IKE/child
> SAs on CREATE_CONNECTION_LATCH() must have a larval state that we don't
> describe.
> 
> Would that work?

Yup - sounds good. (and maybe transient or intermediate is better than larval to describe that state...)

--julien