Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Med, Update looks good. Nit: Figure 12 needs to use DOTS signal channel session instead of DOTS session.

-Tiru

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:52 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> 
> This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> Re-,
> 
> FWIW, a version which integrates my initial comments including the conclusion
> of the discussion in this thread is available at:
> 
> Xml: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-
> dots-architecture-09.xml
> Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-
> Reviews/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.txt%20draft-ietf-
> dots-architecture-09.pdf
> 
> This version fixes also some "stale" text such as references to "Operational
> Requirements" that are not anymore listed as such in draft-ietf-dots-
> requirements.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> > [e-mail] Envoyé : jeudi 29 novembre 2018 09:31 À :
> > Roman Danyliw; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Dots] WGLC on
> > draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> >
> > Hi Roman, all,
> >
> > I support this draft to be sent to the IESG for publication.
> >
> > Some easy-to-fix comment, though:
> >
> > (1) The document cites [I-D.ietf-dots-requirements] in may
> > occurrences. I suggest these citations to be more specific, that is to
> > point the specific REQ# or the section. Doing so would help readers
> > not familiar with DOTS documents to easily link the various pieces.
> >
> > (2) I used to point people to the DOTS architecture I-D when I receive
> > comments/questions about the notion of "DOTS session" and to the
> > Requirements I-D for clarification about DOTS channels. It seems that
> > some clarifications are needed in the architecture I-D to explain for
> > readers not familiar with all DOTS documents, for example:
> > - the link with the underlying transport sessions/connections and
> > security associations.
> > - mitigations are not bound to a DOTS session but to a DOTS client/domain.
> >
> > (3) The signal channel I-D uses "DOTS signal channel session", "DOTS
> > signal channel sessions" and "DOTS data channel session" to refer to
> > specific DOTS sessions. I'd like to have these terms introduced also in the arch
> I-D.
> >
> > BTW, the signal channel uses in few occurrences "DOTS session"; those
> > can be changed to "DOTS signal channel session". There is no
> > occurrence of "DOTS session" in the data channel I-D.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Roman Danyliw
> > > Envoyé : mardi 27 novembre 2018 23:15 À : [e-mail] Objet :
> > > [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> > >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > Consistent with our discussion at the Bangkok meeting, we are
> > > starting a working group last call (WGLC) for the DOTS architecture draft:
> > >
> > > DOTS Architecture
> > > draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> > >
> > > Please send comments to the DOTS mailing list -- feedback on
> > > remaining
> > issues
> > > or needed changes; as well as endorsements that this draft is ready.
> > >
> > > This WGLC will end on December 12, 2018.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman and Frank
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dots mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots