IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 E015412013B; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3HVoeZbWQYYJ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF445120043; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45v0fP0CxJz1yfc; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:09:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.70]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45v0fN6x9SzFpXL; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:09:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:09:32 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>, Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
Thread-Index: AQHVQihApXHJDxqtQkWjGJXKtxBPs6bZ65KQ
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:09:31 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E79EB@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <DM5PR16MB17050AC5EABA8D76DDB42ACBEAC40@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E3433@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM5PR16MB1705DFCE2F9B379A36FD79AAEAC40@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E34A0@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM5PR16MB170553F3A8B1F3F1ED59D509EAC40@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E3792@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM5PR16MB170505ABB7555E0ADCEC1BC6EAC40@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E3A41@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20190724133415.GG50840@kduck.mit.edu> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E7566@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20190724140101.GI50840@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190724140101.GI50840@kduck.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/K95mElKnKXI4XVxlC5nAnnH0I3o>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:09:37 -0000

Re-,

I don't think so. 

There is already some "generic" text in RFC8323 (CoAP/TCP): 

      "According to
      [HomeGateway], the mean for TCP and UDP NAT binding timeouts is
      386 minutes (TCP) and 160 seconds (UDP).  Shorter timeout values
      require keepalive messages to be sent more frequently.  Hence, the
      use of CoAP over TCP requires less-frequent transmission of
      keepalive messages."

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu]
> Envoyé : mercredi 24 juillet 2019 16:01
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy; Valery Smyslov; dots-chairs@ietf.org;
> dots@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 01:49:40PM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > IMO, this falls under this text:
> >
> >       A heartbeat-interval of 30 seconds may be considered as too chatty
> >       in some deployments.  For such deployments, DOTS agents may
> >       negotiate longer heartbeat-interval values to prevent any network
> >       overload with too frequent keepalives.
> >
> > Isn't it?
> 
> I think the document is quite clear that there are cases where 30 seconds
> doesn't make sense.  My question is whether we want to be very explicit
> about linking the "TCP is used" case as being one such case where 30
> seconds doesn't make sense.  "No" is a fine answer, but I just wanted to
> ask.
> 
> -Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email