Re: [Dots] New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00.txt

["Roland Dobbins" <[e-mail]>]

On 19 Feb 2016, at 21:42, kaname nishizuka wrote:

> Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

This draft is partially or wholly duplicative of 
draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-00, draft-ietf-dots-requirements-00, and 
draft-reddy-dots-transport-02; it is overly prescriptive (e.g., talk 
about flow telemetry); premature (e.g., talk about JSON, certs, message 
formats, and so forth); incomplete (doesn't mention relays at all); and 
contains factually incorrect statements (e.g., that provisioning must 
take place prior to an attack; in point of fact, one of the rationales 
for DOTS is that it allows for dynamic registration and 
auto-provisioning even during an attack).

Have the submitters been following the discussions around the three 
drafts mentioned above?

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>