RE: SPD Cache in 2401bis

["Bora Akyol" <bora@cisco.com>]

Thanks,

in this case, can we at least include in sections of the text in
the packet processing path an alternate description
of what an implementation would do if they were not using a cache.

For example, page 28-29, items 2 and 3a/b.

Since the cache is optional, don't you think we should have a
description
of the non-optional ordered SPD case?

Bora


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Kent [mailto:kent@bbn.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:13 PM
> To: Bora Akyol
> Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
> 
> 
> At 12:13 -0800 3/5/04, Bora Akyol wrote:
> >Is it possible to remove all the discussion on SPD-cache out of 
> >RFC2401bis and into an informational RFC?
> 
> no.
> 
> >The discussion of the cache within the text even pre-faced with the 
> >caveat given that the cache is optional detracts from the clarity of 
> >the text IMHO.
> 
> I've worked on this for a long time and I find that it is much easier 
> to discuss steady-state processing using caches.  This is especially 
> true for discussing how PFP works, for example.  We had a cache-less 
> description in 2401. As primary author of that document I can tell 
> you that the one aspect of 2401 that resulted in the most e-mail 
> questions was a direct result of not having a cache-based model.
> 
> 
> Steve
>