On Mon, 6 May 2019, Valery Smyslov wrote:
That would make sending these notifies dependent on the content of request.
So, the tradeoff is whether saving eight bytes justifies complication of state
machine.
I wouldn't call that complicated the state machine. You are not adding
new states or transitions, and you already keep a list of received
payloads for this state/exchange I hope :P
True, I wasn't precise enough. The complication is that in the current approach
the responder sends these notifications blindly, sending them doesn't depend
on the content of CP request.
RFC 7296 found that argument weak :)
Note that no recommendations are made in this document as to how an
implementation actually figures out what information to send in a
response. That is, we do not recommend any specific method of an
IRAS determining which DNS server should be returned to a requesting
IRAC.
For example, you can always reply with INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP4_NBNS
if the client is requesting only an INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS and either
these first two CFG payloads or not. But I hope you added "complicated code"
to not send those :)
sub-optimal clients get sub-optimal answers.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
