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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 21 November 2018 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4D6128C65; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:25:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H6ngxOZYObn7; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BE8A12007C; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4309yZ5xkJzLDZ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:25:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1542777942; bh=KMDLoAQbL4GvPa6uPI29ecScMbHqoTzT1XEqDX5AEsU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=APYpzRTUE6JeWQhOA4TiMHHH05F0PvMcLiSnPv9c4pRqYBYPyT62djboFMe7bqyOL 0FgBJXG2VCbptPQjNQxcQy7MtYip/4f3VgiBZzd0QR0ZYXKcWNeLArw3tRuetcsAHe mvsC7+Ye3ozqBEZL0Dsn48rBwFb3Y7BHajmv/2U8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yGjJqlppdkjm; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:25:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:25:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 22EA33797AD; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:25:41 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 22EA33797AD
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C2841C3B2E; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:25:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:25:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns@ietf.org, david.waltermire@nist.gov
In-Reply-To: <154275241245.29803.13710690866636967430.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1811210023070.29140@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <154275241245.29803.13710690866636967430.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
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/jPflBgCdQ3flRJRNCoFKRBpq0YM>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 05:25:47 -0000

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Sections 3.1 and 7
>
> I have a hard time seeing why the length of the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute
> would ever be zero. Do you expect someone to send an empty attribute? If not,
> the attribute definition should be updated in Section 7.

If the initiator has no domains listed, it can send a zero-length
attribute to indicate support for this feature. The responder can then
decide to include INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN replies (non-zero). or perhaps
even indicate support, but no configured domains, with a zero length
reply.

> Since the draft needs and uses a lot of example domain names, I would suggest
> using a reserved TLD (e.g. ".example") from BCP32 to build up the examples
> instead of using registered domain names.

Yes, others have made similar comments and I will make the changes.

Paul