Hi Paul, On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, 12:25 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. > 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. > Excellent. Regards Suresh
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
