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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 06:35 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 E455012004C; Wed, 1 May 2019 23:35:44 -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 Ci2r-pcz-0SR; Wed, 1 May 2019 23:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABAD7120006; Wed, 1 May 2019 23:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44vlrX4GSlz5vsN; Thu, 2 May 2019 08:35:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.76]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44vlrX2rpSz1xnn; Thu, 2 May 2019 08:35:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM7E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 2 May 2019 08:35:40 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "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>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU/8rxhy2To8cYWEWyohsPjm9BF6ZXXRIQ
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 06:35:39 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA689F6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155668001610.28771.2924259500369474716.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155668001610.28771.2924259500369474716.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/LXAQgC2jDWhEwthu2zRnjpKfPx8>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Suresh Krishnan'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: Thu, 02 May 2019 06:35:45 -0000

Re-,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> Envoyé : mercredi 1 mai 2019 05:07
> À : The IESG
> Cc : draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia; dots-
> chairs@ietf.org; frank.xialiang@huawei.com; dots@ietf.org
> Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Suresh Krishnan 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This should be easy to clear up, but I would like to understand why this
> document needs to restate the motivation and describe the algorithm for happy
> eyeballs instead of simply stating that hosts should use RFC8305

[Med] We adopted this elaborated approach because there are specifics to the DOTS case that are called out in the text, e.g.,
* probing to migrate the connection
* caching (used to be in HE v1)

Also, unlike RFC8305:
* we don't cancel all other connections upon establishment of one connection.
* we don't forbid all attempts to be sent simultaneously. 

All these details are described in the text. 

 and then
> specify that UDP must be tried before TCP in each of the address families. If
> you do want to specify the whole algorithm here it needs to be more specific
> than "in a manner similar to the Happy Eyeballs mechanism" as it is not clear
> where it is similar (and where it will differ). It also looks like the
> example
> flow in Figure 4 is not consistent with the description before (TCP+IPv6
> before
> UDP+IPv4)

[Med] The text says the following: 

   In reference to Figure 4, the DOTS client sends two TCP SYNs and two
   DTLS ClientHello messages at the same time over IPv6 and IPv4.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     

Ben suggested in his review to add annotations to Figure 4 but we didn't because we though this is redundant with the above text.

Will add annotations to Figure 4.

> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * Section 7.3
> 
> This text is wrong and needs to be removed
> 
> "IP packets whose size does not exceed 576 bytes should never need to be
> fragmented"
> 
> RFC791 only requires all hosts to be prepared to accept datagrams of up to
> 576 octets.
> 

[Med] Done.