Re: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Can you please let us know whether these replies address your concerns?

Thanks,

Ben

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 11:54:50AM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 2 mai 2019 13:25
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : [e-mail]; Roman Danyliw; dots-
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Objet : Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > 
> > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28: Discuss
> > 
> > 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-data-channel/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > I support Suresh's discuss that the process of how it is indicated if a 1 or
> > 2
> > byte mask is used is not clear. However, I would additionally like to discuss
> > why this bit mask is needed at all. The TCP flags field in RFC8519 is already
> > defined as bits. Storing these bits in a signal 8 bit field and applying a
> > matching operation is implementation specific only and doesn't require any
> > changes to the YANG model.
> 
> [Med] The motivation is similar to the one for the IPv4 flags:  
> 
>    Nevertheless,
>    the use of 'flags' is problematic since it does not allow to define a
>    bitmask.  For example, setting other bits not covered by the 'flags'
>    filtering clause in a packet will allow that packet to get through
>    (because it won't match the ACE).  
> 
> The use of bitmask will also ease inter-working witg BGP flowspec.
> 
> > 
> > I would also quickly like to discuss the use of keep-alives as described in
> > Section 3.1: "While the communication to the DOTS server is
> >    quiescent, the DOTS client MAY probe the server to ensure it has
> >    maintained cryptographic state.  Such probes can also keep alive
> >    firewall and/or NAT bindings.  A TLS heartbeat [RFC6520] verifies
> >    that the DOTS server still has TLS state by returning a TLS message."
> > I understood that multiple requests can and should be send in the same
> > connection, however, I would expect that those requests are send basically
> > right after each other, such as a look-up and then change of the config. I
> > don't see a need to keep up the connection for a long time otherwise.
> > Especially any action performed are (other than in the signal channel case)
> > not
> > time critical. Therefore I would rather recommend to close and reopen
> > connections and not recommend to use keep-alives at all.
> 
> [Med] The activity of the DOTS client may be used to track/detect stale entries:
> 
>    Also, DOTS servers
>    may track the inactivity timeout of DOTS clients to detect stale
>    entries.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Editorial comment: As alias 
> 
> [Med] The grouping "target" is defined in the data-channel, and reused in the signal channel. The name cannot be reused because it is a key of the aliases in data-channel and a node in the signal-channel. 
> 
> and migration-scope 
> 
> [Med] I guess you meant "mitigation-scope". There is no such item in the data channel. Please note that "ietf-data:target" is called in the signal-channel under mitigation-scope. 
> 
> (in the signal channel
> > document) have the same fields, wouldn't it make sense to only definite it
> > once
> > somewhere?
> > 
>