Re: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for the quick reply and the fixes, Tiru!

Barry

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:38 AM Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
<TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba via
> > Datatracker
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:40 PM
> > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> > Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; dots-chairs@ietf.org;
> > valery@smyslov.net; dots@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dots-architecture@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> > CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> >
> > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> > paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-architecture/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > A well done document; thanks,  I have just a few minor comments:
> >
> > — Section 1.1.1 —
> > You don’t *quite* have the BCP 14 boilerplate verbatim; please fix that.
>
> Fixed.
>
> >
> > — Section 1.3 —
> >
> >    o  The signal and data channels are loosely coupled, and may not
> >       terminate on the same DOTS server.
> >
> > I suggest “might not”, lest someone misread it to mean that they are not
> > permitted to (the strict English meaning of “may not”).  Look for “may not”
> > elsewhere also: I saw it in Section 2 as well, and one or two other places.
>
> Thanks, corrected in other places (Sections 1.3, 2 and 3.2.4.1).
>
> >
> > — Section 2 —
> >
> >    Thus, DOTS neither specifies how an attack target decides it is under
> >    DDoS attack, nor does DOTS specify how a mitigator may actually
> >    mitigate such an attack.
> >
> > The structure of this “neither...nor” doesn’t work.
> >
> > NEW
> >    Thus, DOTS specifies neither how an attack target decides it is under
> >    DDoS attack, nor how a mitigator may actually mitigate such an attack.
> > END
>
> Updated in my local copy.
>
> Cheers,
> -Tiru
>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > Dots@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>