Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05

"Jon Shallow" <> Wed, 06 November 2019 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555B91208B9; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:59:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JbuTlvXc-e2; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:59:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2A43120120; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:59:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] helo=N01332) by with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1iSMlt-0000G8-2y; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:58:57 +0000
From: "Jon Shallow" <>
To: "'Valery Smyslov'" <>, <>, <>
References: <011d01d58974$b70298b0$2507ca10$>
In-Reply-To: <011d01d58974$b70298b0$2507ca10$>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:58:52 -0000
Message-ID: <1bb901d594b2$b4502b20$1cf08160$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQG7u70viJ1zeDaA3CAo0XFND0KMCaex55Bg
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:59:03 -0000

Hi All,

I have read through draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05 and think that it is
a good document.

However, in particular with DHCPv(4|6), it is only possible to use the first
OPTION_Vx_DOTS_ADDRESS (5.1.3, 5.2.3).  If the server at the first address
is down / unavailable for whatever reason, it is not possible to define a
backup IP address as a secondary entry.  Is it the intention to not allow
backup IP addresses?

With DNS, I know that A/AAAA records can be presented round-robin which
gives the possibility of backup IP addresses, but am not sure whether this
holds true for implementations for other Resource Records.  If backup
addresses are to be allowed, the draft is unclear whether only the first
A/AAAA RR is allowed, or each can be tested until the first non-failure is
found, or whether happy-eyeballs it to be invoked against all of the IP
addresses and then the final IP preferentially chosen according to the RR
returned order.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [] On Behalf Of Valery
> Smyslov
> Sent: 23 October 2019 08:37
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05
> Hi,
> this message starts a Work Group Last Call (WGLC) for
> discovery-05.
> The version to be reviewed is here:
> server-discovery-05.txt
> The WGLC will last for two weeks and will end on November the 7th.
> Please send your comments to the list before this date.
> Regards,
> Frank & Valery.
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list