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

[Nicolas Williams]

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.

> 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?