Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 07 May 2019 06:15 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 A484412002F; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 m00HbgsdWfLk; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85105120020; Mon, 6 May 2019 23:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44yq9R41mNz5wQQ; Tue, 7 May 2019 08:15:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.23]) by opfedar02.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44yq9R2GjQzCqkS; Tue, 7 May 2019 08:15:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::857d:4f67:b0a7:10d7%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 7 May 2019 08:15:55 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>
CC: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org>, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVBCUgeUHRSw3VQ0SlC7L+HLW39aZfL9NA
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 06:15:54 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA765B6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155676213548.2612.17892772935784304109.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA68A8D@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <95C6D084-9E41-496A-8FD1-4AA5BAA7426E@cooperw.in> <BYAPR16MB27908DC93A4789945C9FEADEEA350@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <20190506160214.GG19509@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190506160214.GG19509@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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/LSjW8CgGpgsexfff4ecLHDUhatY>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Tue, 07 May 2019 06:16:00 -0000

Hi Ben, 

I already went with the s/by default, .... MUST/SHOULD to address the comment from Alissa. I also implemented the other change proposals. 

FWIW, the updated version is available at: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/blob/master/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.txt.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu]
> Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2019 18:02
> À : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> Cc : Alissa Cooper; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; draft-ietf-dots-signal-
> channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia; dots-chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org; IESG
> Objet : Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-
> 31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 07:17:55AM +0000, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy wrote:
> > Hi Alissa,
> >
> > Please see inline
> >
> > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 8:50 PM
> > To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > Cc: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia
> <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>om>; dots@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; dots-
> chairs@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-
> channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> >
> > CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Hi Med,
> >
> >
> > On May 2, 2019, at 3:18 AM,
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alissa,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Alissa Cooper via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 2 mai 2019 03:56
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dots-signal-
> channel@ietf.org>gt;; Liang Xia; dots-
> > chairs@ietf.org<mailto:chairs@ietf.org>;
> frank.xialiang@huawei.com<mailto:frank.xialiang@huawei.com>;
> dots@ietf.org<mailto:dots@ietf.org>
> > Objet : Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: 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-signal-channel/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > = Section 3 =
> >
> > "By default, a DOTS signal channel MUST run over port number TBD as
> >   defined in Section 9.1, for both UDP and TCP, unless the DOTS server
> >   has a mutual agreement with its DOTS clients to use a different port
> >   number.  DOTS clients MAY alternatively support means to dynamically
> >   discover the ports used by their DOTS servers (e.g.,
> >   [I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery])."
> >
> > MUST implies an absolute requirement, so "MUST .... unless" is a
> problematic
> > construction.
> >
> > [Med] It seems that you missed "By default, “.
> >
> > Even with “by default” this still is problematic. MUST indicates an
> absolute requirement.
> >
> > [TR] “MUST (NOT)..unless” construction is used in several specifications,
> please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8094#section-3.1 and
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-2.2.1
> 
> Alissa is correct that MUST is absolute within the realm that it applies
> to, so we need to be clear about what domain the requirement applies to.
> The text in the -31 here is particularly problematic because of the
> following "MAY alternatively" which is in a different sentence and has a
> confusing relationship to the previous text.  A (hopefully clearer)
> proposal:
> 
> In some cases, a DOTS client and server may have mutual agreement to use a
> specific port number, such as by explicit configuration or dynamic
> discovery [I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discvory].  Absent such mutual
> agreement, the DOTS signal channel MUST run over port number TBD as defined
> in Section 9.1, for both UDP and TCP.
> 
> -Ben