Re: [IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-04.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 09 February 2018 17:06 UTC

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:06:37 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "ipsec@ietf.org WG" <ipsec@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <23161.60955.207264.333654@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1802091205360.14532@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <23161.44491.871182.608585@fireball.acr.fi> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1802061040590.28057@bofh.nohats.ca> <23161.60955.207264.333654@fireball.acr.fi>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/i2D5b30fQqvpMVb3WZAah4HFO3o>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-04.txt
Precedence: list

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> but this is not possible with current definition of the section 4.2,
> where the DNSKEY Key Tag etc fields are mandatory. Thats why my
> proposal was to make whole DNSSEC Trust Anchor Data optional.

Fixed in -06

>> I've submitted -05. My only question now is what to do with the
>> length field of both records. It now says "2 octects, unsigned integer"
>> but perhaps it should say "2 octets in network order" ?
>
> In RFC7296 we have:
>
>   All multi-octet fields representing integers are laid out in big
>   endian order (also known as "most significant byte first", or
>   "network byte order").

Thanks, added to the start of the section.

diff at:

 	https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-06

Paul

[IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-… Tero Kivinen
Re: [IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-sp… Paul Wouters
Re: [IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-sp… Tero Kivinen
Re: [IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-sp… Paul Wouters
Re: [IPsec] Comments to the draft-ietf-ipsecme-sp… Paul Wouters