Re: [IPsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: (with COMMENT)

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters writes:
> I did not really want to do that. It would also require updating RFC 
> 7296. So instead, I just pushed a change with:
> 
> -   assigned domains.  DNS queries for other domains MUST be sent to the
> -   regular DNS service of the client.
> +   assigned domains.  DNS queries for other domains SHOULD be sent to
> +   the regular DNS service of the client unless it prefers to use the
> +   IPsec tunnel for all its DNS queries.  For example, the client could
> +   trust the IPsec provided DNS servers more than the locally provided
> +   DNS servers especially in the case of connecting to unknown or
> +   untrusted networks (eg coffee shops or hotel networks).  Or the
> +   client could prefer the IPsec based DNS servers because those provide
> +   additional features over the local DNS servers.
> 
> > Anyways I think changing that to say "SHOULD be sent" could work
> > better, i.e., depending on the policy clients could either send
> > requests to normal DNS server or to the server provided in IKE.
> 
> Yes, done. see above.

Looks good. 

> > Note, that the original configuration payload was supposed to provide
> > similar information than what DHCP does, so client does not need to
> > have anything preconfigured, but can get the whole network
> > configuration from the server. This included addresses, dns servers,
> > etc, and even DHCP server address that it can use to get attributes
> > not included in the configuration payload. Usually the configuration
> > parameters received from configuration payload replaced the parameters
> > they had before.
> 
> Yes, but with split-tunnel, the client is clearly stepping in with one 
> foot while keeping the other foot dry :)

Agreed. My text was mostly to explain people not familiar with
configuration payload what was the original meaning for them in
non-split-tunnel context.
-- 
[e-mail]