Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt
"Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Wed, 05 February 2020 20:24 UTC
Return-Path: <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.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 20D53120289 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 12:24:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 zSfg3Klzgkm7 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 12:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.jpshallow.com (mail.jpshallow.com [217.40.240.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED523120805 for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 12:24:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.jpshallow.com ([192.168.0.3] helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1izRDb-0005LR-W0; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 20:24:16 +0000
From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: "'Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy'" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, dots@ietf.org
References: <158048229416.21195.16114328651657501634@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303141473A@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031414F55@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CY4PR1601MB125427847C0E00EC33BD4520EA020@CY4PR1601MB1254.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR1601MB125427847C0E00EC33BD4520EA020@CY4PR1601MB1254.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 20:24:08 -0000
Message-ID: <0a3001d5dc62$37f49820$a7ddc860$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHr206TCH7qdtBwuLa4j7/r9QPmPgFoCT98AYq79nABByZIcqfBOr1w
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/7ED-XfDZOkJ5n56O9Ap-33kCCgA>
Subject: Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 20:24:28 -0000
See inline Regards Jon > -----Original Message----- > From: Dots [mailto: dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Konda, > Tirumaleswar Reddy > Sent: 05 February 2020 06:59 > To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Jon Shallow (supjps- > ietf@jpshallow.com); dots@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > > Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 3:07 PM > > To: Jon Shallow (supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com) <supjps- > ietf@jpshallow.com>; > > dots@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt > > > > CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless > you > > recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > Hi all, > > > > FYI, a review from Jon is available at: https://github.com/boucadair/draft- > > dots-telemetry/raw/master/DOTS%20Telemetry%2001-rev%20Jon- > > res%20Med.docx > > > > -02 will integrate almost all comments from Jon. Please find below some > > points we would like to hear more from the working group: > > > > (1) key value range for telemetry: Jon raised this point "These keys > requires 3 > > bytes - and telemetry information is going to be difficult to fit into a > packet. I > > appreciate that comprehension-required Is for numbers less than 0x8000 - > > perhaps the comprehension-required range is reduced and also has a > section > > higher up so the total of 0x8000 still stands so less bytes can be used > here." > > > > +----------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+ > > | Parameter Name | CBOR | CBOR | Change | Specification | > > | | Key | Major | Controller | Document(s) | > > | | Value | Type | | | > > +----------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+ > > | ietf-dots-signal-cha | 32776 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] | > > | nnel:telemetry | | | | | > > > > Med: This is a major one. We need to assess the gain, but it is possible in > > theory to update our assignment policies and reassign, e.g., 128-255 range > to > > be comprehension-optional (specific for telemetry). This would mean that > > the telemetry spec will be tagged as updating the base signal channel > spec. > > We need more discussion. > > Why not change the DOTS telemetry attributes to comprehension-required > ? > If the server does not understand the DOTS telemetry attributes, it will > respond with 4.00 error response, and the client can re-send the request > without the DOTS telemetry attributes. Jon> Telemetry is also gated by a different sets of Path-URIs. However, source-prefix attribute comes from draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home and also occupies 3 bytes - do we change the source-prefix CBOR Key type to comprehension-required? > > Cheers, > -Tiru > > > > > (2) server-initiated-telemetry: "Having server-initiated-telemetry under > > max-config-values, but not min-config-values makes no sense to me. I > think > > it should be under telemetry-config at the level of current-config and > > possibly removed from current-config as well." > > > > Med: > > > > A. It is in the max container because setting that value to "false" under > that > > container has a special meaning: the server does not support sending pre- > > mitigation telemetry. We can put it under min as well but do we have a > case > > where setting it to "true" has a meaning? > > B. I do agree that 'server-initiated-telemetry' can be removed from the > > current configuration because the same functionality is achieved using a > > GET+Observe but we left it there for the moment as we need to work > > further the details for subscribing to pre-mitigation from the servers. > > > > (3) "vendor-id is missing from the cbor table": > > > > Med: This was done on purpose to try to optimize the number of CBOR key > > values + encourage attributes reuse. E.g., We replaced "telemetry-id", > > "baseline-id", and "vendor-id" with a single "id" (as we only use those for > the > > moment in the message body) but the YANG module includes the > meaning > > of each "id" in the definition clause. We may need to revise this if we > > conclude that, e.g., "telemetry-id" (tmid) has to be defined as Path-URI. Jon> Hmm - need to think through tmid + Path-URI. ~jon > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de > > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Envoyé : vendredi 31 janvier 2020 > 16:18 > > À > > > : dots@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Dots] I-D Action: > > > draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > We prepared with Tiru a major revision of the telemetry draft. A diff > > > is provided below to track the changes. We will now focus on sections > > > 7 and 8. > > > > > > Please review and share comments. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Med > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de internet- > > > > drafts@ietf.org Envoyé : vendredi 31 janvier 2020 15:52 À : > > > > i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc : dots@ietf.org Objet : [Dots] I-D Action: > > > > draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > > > directories. > > > > This draft is a work item of the DDoS Open Threat Signaling WG of > > > the > > > > IETF. > > > > > > > > Title : Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat > > > > Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry > > > > Authors : Mohamed Boucadair > > > > Tirumaleswar Reddy > > > > Ehud Doron > > > > Meiling Chen > > > > Filename : draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.txt > > > > Pages : 70 > > > > Date : 2020-01-31 > > > > > > > > Abstract: > > > > This document aims to enrich DOTS signal channel protocol with > > > > various telemetry attributes allowing optimal DDoS attack > > > > mitigation. > > > > This document specifies the normal traffic baseline and attack > > > > traffic telemetry attributes a DOTS client can convey to its DOTS > > > > server in the mitigation request, the mitigation status telemetry > > > > attributes a DOTS server can communicate to a DOTS client, and > > > the > > > > mitigation efficacy telemetry attributes a DOTS client can > > > > communicate to a DOTS server. The telemetry attributes can > > > assist > > > > the mitigator to choose the DDoS mitigation techniques and > > > perform > > > > optimal DDoS attack mitigation. > > > > > > > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-telemetry/ > > > > > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01 > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01 > > > > > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > > > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > > > > tools.ietf.org. > > > > > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Dots mailing list > > > > Dots@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Dots mailing list > > > Dots@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dots mailing list > > Dots@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
- [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-01.t… internet-drafts
- Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-… Jon Shallow
- Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy