What is the correction request for the cPP? Please describe.
NIAP TD5072/Network Device Interpretation #201918rev3 explicitly reaffirms that DNS resolution is not mandatory to support FTP_ITC.1 if the channel uses TLS/DTLS and RFC 6125 is claimed for reference identification because the RFC does not mandate DNS itself. This is still implicitly true in the updated version of the PP but it may be beneficial for an application note to explicitly reaffirm this.
Describe the solution you'd like
Add to App Note 35 something along the lines of: "DNS resolution is not mandatory to support this SFR. There are no resolution mandates or requirements in RFC 6125."
Describe alternatives you've considered
It may be sufficiently detailed as-is if the intended audience is reasonably expected to conclude this information, but since the TD was originally issued to clarify this it may be necessary to state it more clearly.
Provide the location of the issue FTP_ITC.1
What is the correction request for the cPP? Please describe. NIAP TD5072/Network Device Interpretation #201918rev3 explicitly reaffirms that DNS resolution is not mandatory to support FTP_ITC.1 if the channel uses TLS/DTLS and RFC 6125 is claimed for reference identification because the RFC does not mandate DNS itself. This is still implicitly true in the updated version of the PP but it may be beneficial for an application note to explicitly reaffirm this.
Describe the solution you'd like Add to App Note 35 something along the lines of: "DNS resolution is not mandatory to support this SFR. There are no resolution mandates or requirements in RFC 6125."
Describe alternatives you've considered It may be sufficiently detailed as-is if the intended audience is reasonably expected to conclude this information, but since the TD was originally issued to clarify this it may be necessary to state it more clearly.
Additional context N/A