Hi Magnus, pe, 2020-04-03 kello 09:17 +0000, Magnus Westerlund kirjoitti: > > > > > 2. Secondly, as this solution is different from the RFC 5770 > should > > > this > > > solution have a different service name? The reason I am asking is > > > that it > > > depends on how for example how an initiator determine which of > the > > > NAT > > > traversal solution. If there is any intention to use DNS SRV for > > > example > > > different service name would make sense. This is primarily to > verify > > > that this > > > has been considered. > > > > I am not an expert on the topic but based on some discussions with > some > > colleagues, the SRV records seem to more suitable for > infrastructure > > discovery, not really for end-host discovery. Since you asked for > this, > > I wrote a new section in the appendix: > > So the main reason for my question was to ensure that you have not > forgoetten > that you actually have some dependnecy on the service name that would > in fact be > incompatible. That could include some supporting document, for > example usage of > SRV records. However, with the below text written, I do find it > informative. And > the statement at the end that you don't use SRV records currently is > also good > and part to answer one aspect of my question. To conclude, it appears > to be no > issues with having the two mechanisms share service name and port. > > From my perspective it appears to be some benefit in including the > below > appendix in the specificaiton, but you should seek consensus on it in > the WG > before the document is approved in my opinion.
I have sent an separate email to the WG mailing list on this. P.S. Thanks for all of your valuable comments! _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
