Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9284 <draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-13> for your review

[tirumal reddy <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Please see inline.

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 05:19, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as
> follows. We
> have removed the expansion of "DDoS" as it is included inside another
> abbreviation, and it is considered well known on the abbreviations list
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt).
> Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
>
> Original:
> Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service
>                       Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
>
> Current:
> Multihoming Deployment Considerations for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
> -->
>

Okay.


>
>
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>
>
> 3) <!--[rfced] Will it be clear to readers what is multihomed in this
> sentence?
>
> Original:
>    The goal is to provide some guidance for DOTS clients and
>    client-domain DOTS gateways when multihomed.
>

Yes, the term "multihomed" is used in several RFCs.


> -->
>
>
> 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "server(s) addresses" here;
> the "(s)" seems unnecessary. Does either suggestion convey the
> intended meaning?
>
> Original:
>    The DOTS client establishes one or more DOTS sessions by
>    connecting to the provided DOTS server(s) addresses (e.g., by using
>    [RFC8973]).
>
> Option A:
>    The DOTS client establishes one or more DOTS sessions by
>    connecting to the provided DOTS server addresses (e.g., by using
>    [RFC8973]).
>
> Option B:
>    The DOTS client establishes one or more DOTS sessions by
>    connecting to the provided addresses for the DOTS server or
>    servers (e.g., by using [RFC8973]).
> -->
>

Option B looks good.


>
>
> 5) <!--[rfced] Should Section 4.1's title also use a colon?
>
> Current:
> Multihomed Residential Single CPE
>
> Perhaps:
> Multihomed Residential: Single CPE
>

Yes.


>
> For comparison:
> 4.2.  Multihomed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream ISPs
> -->
>
>
> 6) <!--[rfced] In the following text, please clarify whether the "/"
> in "IP addresses/prefixes" means "and" or "or", and please review
> whether "the" or "a" may be used for "default gateway address" and
> "DOTS server's name".
>
> Original:
>    *  Each of these provisioning domains assigns IP addresses/prefixes
>       to the CPE and provides additional configuration information such
>       as a list of DNS servers, DNS suffixes associated with the
>       network, default gateway address, and DOTS server's name
>       [RFC8973].
>
> Perhaps:
>    *  Each of these provisioning domains assigns IP addresses or prefixes
>       to the CPE and provides additional configuration information such
>       as a list of DNS servers, DNS suffixes associated with the
>       network, the default gateway address, and the DOTS server's name
>       [RFC8973].


Proposed text looks good.


>
>
> Throughout this document, please review the usage of "addresses/prefixes"
> (16 instances) as well as similar "address/prefix" (2 instances) and
> "prefixes/addresses" (1 instance) and let us know if any updates are
> needed.
> Perhaps "and", "or", or "and/or" is intended.
>

You can use "or".


> -->
>
>
> 7) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence. It seems there's an
> extraneous "from".
> The "either ... or" phrase should contain two parallel items, e.g.,
> A) either "the DNS servers learned" or "the DNS servers associated"
> B) either "learned from" or "associated with"
> Please see below.
>
> Original:
>    The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by each
>    provisioning domain using either the DNS servers learned from the
>    respective provisioning domain or from the DNS servers associated
>    with the interface(s) for which a DOTS server was explicitly
>    configured (Section 4).
>
> Option A (removing "from"):
>    The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by each
>    provisioning domain using either the DNS servers learned from the
>    respective provisioning domain or the DNS servers associated
>    with the interface(s) for which a DOTS server was explicitly
>    configured (Section 4).
>
> Option B (avoiding repetition of "DNS servers"):
>    The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by each
>    provisioning domain using the DNS servers either learned from the
>    respective provisioning domain or associated
>    with the interface(s) for which a DOTS server was explicitly
>    configured (Section 4).


Option B looks good.


>
> -->
>
>
> 8) <!--[rfced] Regarding this text:
> - Please clarify what "it" refers to in "it MUST check".
>   Does it refer to a client-domain DOTS gateway?
>

Yes.


> - In the first sentence, will "the latter" be clear to the reader?
>   Does it refer to DOTS clients?
>

Yes.


>
> Original:
>    When PA addresses/prefixes are used, but no filter rules are provided
>    to DOTS clients, the latter MUST contact all client-domain DOTS
>    gateways simultaneously to send a DOTS message.  Upon receipt of a
>    request by a client-domain DOTS gateway, it MUST check whether the
>    request is to be forwarded upstream (if the target IP prefix is
>    managed by the upstream server) or rejected.
>
> Perhaps:
>    When PA addresses/prefixes are used, but no filter rules are provided
>    to DOTS clients, the clients MUST contact all client-domain DOTS
>

You may want to replace "the clients" with "the DOTS clients" or "it".


>    gateways simultaneously to send a DOTS message.  Upon receipt of this
>    request, a client-domain DOTS gateway MUST check whether the
>    request is to be forwarded upstream (if the target IP prefix is
>    managed by the upstream server) or rejected.
> -->
>

Good catch, the proposed text looks good.


>
>
> 9) <!--[rfced] FYI, RFC 8811, Section 4 is IANA Considerations, so we have
> updated this to point to Section 5 (Security Considerations) instead.
>
> Original:
>    DOTS-related security considerations are discussed in Section 4 of
>    [RFC8811].
>
> Current:
>    DOTS-related security considerations are discussed in Section 5 of
>    [RFC8811].
> -->
>

Thanks.


>
>
> 10) <!--[rfced] Regarding [TS.24008], the original noted "Release 16".
> Do you want to reference a specific version?


No, I don't see the need to reference a specific version.

Please change my affiliation to Nokia and remove the office address.

Cheers,
-Tiru


> If so, did you intend
> 16.3.0 in December 2019 (as shown under "Versions" at the provided
> URL) or a different version?
>
> Original:
>    [TS.24008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
>
>               network protocols; Stage 3 (Release 16)", December 2019,
>               <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
>
> Current:
>    [TS.24008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
>               network protocols; Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.008 16.3.0,
>               December 2019,
>               <https://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
> -->
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/st/ar
>
>
> On Aug 1, 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2022/08/01
>
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
>
> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>
> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and
> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>
> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
> your approval.
>
> Planning your review
> ---------------------
>
> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>
> *  RFC Editor questions
>
>   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
>   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
>   follows:
>
>   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>
>   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>
> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>
>   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>
> *  Content
>
>   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
>   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>   - contact information
>   - references
>
> *  Copyright notices and legends
>
>   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>
> *  Semantic markup
>
>   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
>   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
>   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>
> *  Formatted output
>
>   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
>   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
>   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>
>
> Submitting changes
> ------------------
>
> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
> include:
>
>   *  your coauthors
>
>   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>
>   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
>      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
>      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>
>   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list
>      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>      list:
>
>     *  More info:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>
>     *  The archive itself:
>        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>
>     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
>        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
>        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
>        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and
>        its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>
> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>
> An update to the provided XML file
> — OR —
> An explicit list of changes in this format
>
> Section # (or indicate Global)
>
> OLD:
> old text
>
> NEW:
> new text
>
> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>
> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in
> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>
>
> Approving for publication
> --------------------------
>
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>
>
> Files
> -----
>
> The files are available here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-xmldiff1.html
>
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> diff files of the XML.
>
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.original.v2v3.xml
>
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.form.xml
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9284
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9284 (draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-13)
>
> Title            : Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for
> Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
> Author(s)        : M. Boucadair, T. Reddy.K, W. Pan
> WG Chair(s)      : Valery Smyslov, Liang Xia
>
> Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters
>