IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dots] Questions about draft-doron-dots-telemetry-00

"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Fri, 11 November 2016 04:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 805CE129880 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:29:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 apSBiVPJ36Qc for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (plainfield.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED3C1129473 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.22]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id uAB4Td1d011852; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:29:39 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1478838579; bh=3CQ5kece1TXUh6I9N+zvru0Zj2ehTYQ6PIft/z7kTPQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Sender:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References; b=XDPxhcaMuoL53obKGRAGIgMZHtTp1k9HnQlD4hHTvpJHfI7xJVpZJtoyaW1J4vcFm 3rCiZUn4PBX2kXLPSfAPqaH7m6NvwRCBKZ9hdSfG/i0GGhDRxeXvIPrnBylZAEJrw6 NIlFaSgZsVXNvouQr3g1Ny8eLVmP62HuLebUDgSQ=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id uAB4TbQo009797; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:29:37 -0500
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:29:37 -0500
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: "ehudd@radware.com" <ehudd@radware.com>, "tireddy@cisco.com" <tireddy@cisco.com>, "fandreas@cisco.com" <fandreas@cisco.com>, "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, kaname nishizuka <kaname@nttv6.jp>
Thread-Topic: Questions about draft-doron-dots-telemetry-00
Thread-Index: AdI7wYm473OfPCFJSFe1ONIXj1qG/g==
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 04:29:37 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104EAE8B8@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104EAE8B8marathon_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/8QToURGYluqnnUmViw2ZFS2p_Z4>
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dots] Questions about draft-doron-dots-telemetry-00
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: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 04:29:49 -0000

Hello Ehud, Tiru, Flemming, Frank and Kaname!

Thanks for producing and submitting this draft!

Without getting into the details, what did you have in mind with this draft.  Specifically:

(1) Is there an undocumented telemetry use case that needs to be added to the use case WG document?  Section 4.0 suggests that.

(2) Is there another protocol draft coming that will incorporate the attributes enumerated in Section 3?  Or are the existing protocol drafts supposed to adopted these?

(3) What is the relationship you see between this draft and draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01 (especially given all the authors on the latter are in the former as well)?

Thanks,
Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email