Re: [Dots] Unique use cases

Hi Roman,

The questions are related to my draft.
Sorry for my late reply, I added comments inline.

On 2016/04/01 4:25, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:
> Hi Roland!
>
> (chair hat off)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Dobbins
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:05 AM
>> To: dots@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Dots] Unique use cases
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2016, at 5:30, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> (1) What's the difference between [WG-UC]'s [WG-UC]-2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
>>> beyond the kind of device acting as the DOTS client?  The write-ups
>>> are nearly identical.
>> That's the point - to illustrate that different types of devices/applications can
>> participate in DOTS, and that all the other differences are largely irrelevant to
>> the actual requirements of DOTS, and that DOTS has universal applicability.
> I agree on the intent.  IMHO, by repeating the text so many times, this universal applicability and common behavior regardless of device got lost.
>
> [snip]
>>> (2) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [UD-UC]-1 (Section 4.1.1)
>>> and 2 (Section 4.1.2); and [WG-UC]-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6?
>> There is no Section 4.1.1 nor Section 4.1.2 in draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01,
>> IIRC?
> The cited section numbers were for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 [aka, ID-UC].  I didn't cite the section numbers for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01 [aka, WG-UC].
>
>>> (3) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [ID-UC]-3 (Section 4.2.1)
>>> and [ID-UC]-4 (Section 4.2.2); and [IDC-UC]-1 (Section 3.1)?
>> Are you asking about the delta between the specific use cases in the two
>> draft versions?
> Ignoring, draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01, I was trying to understand the difference between use cases #3 and 4 in Section 4.2.1/4.2.2 in draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 [aka, ID-UC]; relative to use case #1 in Section 3.1 of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00 [aka, IDC-UC].  Are the former two use cases the same as the latter?
>
First, [ID-UC]-4,5 is intended to be identical with [IDC-UC]-1,2. (related to (4)): [ID-UC]-4 == [IDC-UC]-1, [ID-UC]-5 == [IDC-UC]-2.

[ID-UC]-4 (Mutual delegation) is a combination of [ID-UC]-3(delegation model), however, they have a slight difference.
The uniqueness of [ID-UC]-4 is that they utilize the DDoS protection system each other. Hence, it causes a coordination problem like how to determine the range of the protection they cover.

>>> (4) [ID-UC]-5 and [IDC-UC]-2 appear to be acknowledged as the same use
>>> case in Section 4.2.3 of [ID-UC].  Is that correct?
>> Unfortunately, I'm very confused by all the new acronyms and reliance on
>> numbers which don't actually appear in the documents - there is no Section
>> 4.2.3 in draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01.  Can you provide more context?
>> Apologies for my confusion!
> Sorry for the confusion.  Let me expand my notation for clarity ...
>
> Use case #5 in Section 4.2.3 of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 [aka, ID-UC] appears to state that it is identical to use case #2 in Section 3.2 of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00 [aka, IDC-UC].  Is that correct?
yes, it's correct.

thank you,
kaname
> Roman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots