Re: [Dots] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Mortensen <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:32 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>;
> The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-18: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> See below.
> 
> > On Feb 22, 2019, at 8:41 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > …snip...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> S 2.2.
> >>>        active DOTS client has not requested mitigation, in order to
> >>>        control load.
> >>>
> >>>        Following mutual authentication, a signal channel MUST be
> >>>        considered active until a DOTS agent explicitly ends the session.
> >>>        During peace time, signal channel MUST be considered active
> >>> until
> >>
> >> "peace time" is probably not the right word here. After all, my
> >> country might be at peace but still subject to a DoS attack
> >
> > Added the following term to avoid confusion :
> > Peacetime: In DDoS, ‘peacetime’ refers to the period during which the target
> network is not under DDoS attack.
> >
> > If you must, but I think this is might be considered a little in bad taste by
> people who are involved in actual wars.
> 
> I think we can just change the text to “When no attack traffic is present, the
> signal channel MUST be….” No need for the extra definition.

Yes, will also remove the use of 'peacetime' word from the DOTS signal channel draft.

-Tiru

> 
> andrew