As with DNR, I definitely think we should be using the wire format here (for communicating on the wire). The IKE option here would carry the binary format for the parameters, and it doesn’t require the IKE implementation to do any parsing, etc on that.
Since it looks like there’s good consensus on the DNR side in the ADD WG, I think the most important thing to do is ensure the same format is used for IKE as is used elsewhere. For DDR, DNR, and this IKE extension, they should all use the same format, whether the information is in a DNS packet, a DHCP packet, or an IKE packet. Thanks, Tommy > On Oct 4, 2023, at 5:28 AM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > > As I said over the other side, I prefer presentation format. Here that is > even more true than over at the dhcp server because ike daemons (server AND > client) tend to not implement dns wire format. > > Presentation format would be to reject this change. > > But whichever is picked, if I am in the rough, do make it the same format for > both drafts. > > Paul > > Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone > >> On Oct 4, 2023, at 06:33, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >> >> Hi all, = >> >> >> This document is already in AUTH48-DONE but still not published yet because= >> of a normative dependency (see more about the cluster at https://www.rfc-= >> editor.org/auth48/C461). >> >> A late issue was raised about the encoding of the service parameters (repre= >> sentation format vs wire format). A summary can be found at: https://mailar= >> chive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/qU_TaosKNhojs3h3ojUb0B_bpXg/. >> >> In order to be consistent with the consensus in ADD, I suggest we update RF= >> C-to-be 9464 as follows: = >> >> >> OLD: >> Service Parameters (SvcParams) (variable) - Specifies a set of >> service parameters that are encoded following the rules in >> Section 2.1 of [RFC9460]. = >> >> >> NEW: >> Service Parameters (SvcParams) (variable) - Specifies a set of >> service parameters that are encoded following the same rules >> for encoding SvcParams using the wire format specified >> in Section 2.2 of [RFC9460]. = >> >> >> The text may seem verbose but the intent is to avoid ambiguity and be expli= >> cit about which part of Section 2.2 of [RFC9460]. >> >> Unless we hear an objection by the end of the week, we will request the RFC= >> Editor to make this change. = >> >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> ___________________________________________________________________________= >> _________________________________ >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= >> tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= >> ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= >> ormation that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= >> te this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
