[Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 03 February 2020 10:18 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dots@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A5E12001A; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 02:18:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dots-architecture@ietf.org, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>, dots-chairs@ietf.org, valery@smyslov.net, dots@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.116.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <158072512768.28459.10822203567819861277.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 02:18:47 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/0vGiPptqCdtXz-5v2tSUxli2IHI>
Subject: [Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 10:18:48 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-architecture/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear authors, Thank you for the work put into this document. As a side note, I really liked the section about the manual/over-the-phone part of it. Until now, I have read only this document (dots-architecture) from the dots WG, so, please accept my ignorance for details. But, I have a couple of non-blocking questions where your reply will be welcome and appreciated: Q1) is the monetary cost part of the DOTS signaling ? (I.e., the mitigator telling the target that it will cost so many EUR per hour) Q2) Using DOTS in an under-attack network, did you consider recommending dual-stack signaling to cope with the rare case where IPv4 is disrupted while IPv6 still works (of course if the DoS is plain flooding this won't help a lot probably; and the dual proposition exists). Q3) While I appreciate the value of Anycast DOTS server, hence UDP is mostly required for signaling transport, I wonder whether the choice of UDP (often used AFAIK as volumetric attack as it is easier to spoof) is a good choice compared to TCP or DSCP or ... Q4) When having multiple DOTS servers, I assume that the case of a dual-stack DOTS server is also covered. Therefore, a word on whether Happy Eyeball (RFC 8305) should probably be useful **IF** applicable Regards -éric Regards, -éric
- [Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-d… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… tirumal reddy
- Re: [Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)