[Dots] DATA-004 : draft-ietf-dots-requirements
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 02 May 2017 07:48 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC3312F28A for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2017 00:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3geHKIGlaeHI for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 May 2017 00:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A41B12948D for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 May 2017 00:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3D2471C03BF; Tue, 2 May 2017 09:43:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme3.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.50.66]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1E8538007B; Tue, 2 May 2017 09:43:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::f1a0:3c6b:bc7b:3aaf]) by OPEXCNORM4E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d5d9:c91a:994b:fc0b%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Tue, 2 May 2017 09:43:21 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Mortensen, Andrew" <amortensen@arbor.net>
CC: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DATA-004 : draft-ietf-dots-requirements
Thread-Index: AdLDF8UFjO+r8nMPRRaOSYKez86iQg==
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:43:21 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5F439@OPEXCNORMAD.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E5F439OPEXCNORMADcorp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/4qnWMu1OH7SHpqKcPt7Rte_3C64>
Subject: [Dots] DATA-004 : draft-ietf-dots-requirements
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 02 May 2017 07:48:33 -0000
Re-,
DATA-004 Black- and whitelist management: DOTS servers SHOULD
provide methods for DOTS clients to manage black- and white-lists
of traffic destined for resources belonging to a client.
Is there any particular reason this is not a MUST, not a SHOULD?
Cheers,
Med
- [Dots] DATA-004 : draft-ietf-dots-requirements mohamed.boucadair