Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17

Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
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 C33C0120125; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.247, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 M_TahX4Vlvlh; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f47.google.com (mail-vs1-f47.google.com [209.85.217.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D4A120116; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f47.google.com with SMTP id j26so6518482vsn.10; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eurTtt3S1iB86ae7a0tCtLYAxi4n9aMb/VhnoDshlvU=; b=ptMFiGWk2iZGwIeiR9MifLuR49Y/HpDLPRaY5bOc3eMbDnnmQAOT/9uNkq9pHvPcLy /SDEDviSXVnpkL0dBHnOxUUQiDE0vXgl9oMpYTFDcIBfDOpos4/CKSiKkFMY39/5mrOL t4aLqliJCSXJuy6pfim4RwyveIXjnMMm4v8RrulOYSPaZ/uo2++TrJpUiyPiHqNP7h8c Wy9HpeQok87+xCuEdYk99Pis/qrh9j20LAengapHWw8gx5dV4H2yFI95HeMEOFvbJVkG EiHzAIol9L86AQqxlDBqmIouH3cDDe8MgG4+Wzq4NmrdKNSMZ+v9z0Zd6X9yit3Moyoz jznw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVkSMxseA5Ll2yM4HTcBhsQTnMnlqgOSEsaFKVvSrPgR13H3Y2L +BFDCht3a77vK5eCVXNyJMnykgmS42pquiSrzS0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhvLckD61SM4XM+HHTOTUeyz10Nmb728JaqcwaaoRcOyNnHG5/vG1pB6gUxX0QzXn8HoOAJzSi7u96WlgkPVE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:33c1:: with SMTP id z184mr8511464vsz.169.1562933641950; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190702223654.GF13810@kduck.mit.edu> <CADZyTk=odGB8n=B3RWU1i_xumH3TRo+Rn5v6NsFVRZzUKdpaRA@mail.gmail.com> <20190712004031.GH16418@kduck.mit.edu> <CADZyTknBwP_1e5aTF3+ODj3SQS2Uy+eMcNEp=jBMZj8+WGggnA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTknBwP_1e5aTF3+ODj3SQS2Uy+eMcNEp=jBMZj8+WGggnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTk=YL-w=KbP96gPaDQFQPC1204X=LtzNi998iC=rF1EPFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.all@ietf.org, dots <dots@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000893c0c058d7ad851"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/J2ENxIf7krb5rAdjIVAm1xjUbq8>
Subject: Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 12 Jul 2019 12:14:05 -0000

wit the link:
https://github.com/dotswg/dots-use-cases

Yours,
Daniel

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:12 AM Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>;
wrote:

> Thanks for the follow up Ben. So I think your concern has been addressed
> by other changes in the document.
> Though I am not saying I do not introduced other nits of the same kind, I
> checked throughout the document
> and I believe any time web interface is mentioned it is currenlty clear it
> does not belong to the network admin.
>
> Maybe some english native co-authors could do a last proof-reading of the
> document to remove these sort of nits.
> the cuurent version is at:
>
>
> The current text is:
>
> """
> The analysis from the
> orchestrator is reported to the network administrator via a web
> interface. If the network administrator decides to start the
> mitigation, the network administrator triggers the DDoS mitigation
> request using the web interface of a DOTS client communicating to the
> orchestrator DOTS server. This request is expected to be associated with
> a context that provides sufficient information to the orchestrator DOTS
> server to infer the DDoS Mitigation to elaborate and coordinate.
> """
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>; wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 04:13:38PM -0400, Daniel Migault wrote:
>> >
>> > c) it was unclear to me how to address the following comment.
>> >
>> >
>> > >    The communication between a network administrator and the
>> > >    orchestrator is also performed using DOTS.  The network
>> administrator
>> > >    via its web interfaces implements a DOTS client, while the
>> > >    Orchestrator implements a DOTS server.
>> > >
>> > > nit: as written, this is saying that the network administrator has a
>> > > web interface.  I think "its" is supposed to refer to something else.
>> > >
>> > > <mglt>
>> > What we are trying to say is that the network administrator sees its web
>> > interface, and instruct the DOTS client from that interface. I have not
>> > made any change to address that concern, as I do not clearly see what is
>> > confusing.
>> > </mglt>
>>
>> I don't think anyone is actually confused about the meaning; this was just
>> a pedantic comment about the grammar.  "its web interface"  has to belong
>> to something/someone, and with the current wording we are forced to parse
>> the sentence as "the network administrator's web interface", which is
>> surprising since a network administrator is a human and a web interface is
>> usually provided by a webserver.  Perhaps we want to say "The network
>> administrator uses a web interface that implements a DOTS client"?
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dots mailing list
>> Dots@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>>
>