Re: SOI QUESTION: 4.1 Control channel vs. separate protocols

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 9:42 AM -0400 6/25/02, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>Notes from the chair:
>
>This question basically introduces the various questions raised by
>section 4 of the soi-features document, which goes to one of the biggest
>differences to the JFK and IKEv2 approach.
>
>
>4. One or two phases
>
>4.1 Control channel vs. separate protocols
>
>4.1.A) [Meta question, that will be answered by the other questions in
>section 4.]  Does SOI need a control channel for SA management?  Or is
>it acceptable to piggy back SA management as a part of other parts of
>the SOI protocol?

having a separate control channel allows one to better amortize the 
cost of keep alive and other site-to-site messages between two sites 
that have multiple SAs. So, to the extent that one believes in the 
likelihood of multiple SAs between sites, having a long-lived control 
channel is preferable, irrespective of the efficiency of the protocol 
in establishing new SAs.

Steve