IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

"Zhenghui (Marvin)" <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com> Tue, 14 March 2017 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.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 F1AE81294AA for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 vu5TcZ6nWtrO for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB2921293FC for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DCT08334; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:34:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMI411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.86.210.34) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:34:59 +0000
Received: from SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.223]) by szxemi411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.86.210.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:34:56 +0800
From: "Zhenghui (Marvin)" <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
Thread-Index: AdKbyycv4ZM58GBcQp6mg2Ssqy0mugAR5PJwABh/KBA=
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:34:55 +0000
Message-ID: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED00015389FC@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED0001538042@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F19267@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F19267@marathon>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.135.87.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.58C772F4.0074, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.8.223, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 3ef75db1bdaaf6a83f7e3bc01f87122c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/7uJcV5lMi7kj4eaiya2wrxxOwqs>
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 14 Mar 2017 04:35:04 -0000

Hi Roman,

We used to believe that IPFIX can serve as a way for DOTS telemetry. 
However, an impression I've got in the past few weeks following the WG discussion, it is agreed that telemetry is an issue to be postponed.

Basically, we'd like to hear from the WG, about their opinions on this draft, so we can figure out what to do next.

For now, we do not see this draft as strongly mapping to the existing WG architecture or the protocol requirements.

Best Regards,
Zhenghui (Marvin)


-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Danyliw [mailto:rdd@cert.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:08 AM
To: Zhenghui (Marvin) <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>; dots@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

Hello Marvin!

Thanks for sharing this update. 

> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:37 AM
> Subject: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into 
> draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
>
[snip]

> However, we’ve realized what our draft intends to do is not what 
> currently DOTS WG is focusing on.
[snip]
> We submitted this draft to DOTS because IPFIX WG had been closed, and 
> DOTS was the best match we found.

To confirm, you do not see this draft as mapping to the existing WG architecture [1] or the protocol requirements [2] (as in part of a signal or data channel)?

Regards,
Roman

[1] draft-ietf-dots-architecture-01
[2] draft-ietf-dots-requirements-03

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email