Re: [Dots] WGLC for draft-dots-use-cases-19

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:44 PM
> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Dots] WGLC for draft-dots-use-cases-19
> 
> This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> 
> Hi Tiru,
> 
> OK. I prepared a proposal at: https://github.com/dotswg/dots-use-
> cases/pull/11/files

Thanks, looks good.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 7 août 2019 08:35
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Valery Smyslov; [e-mail] Cc :
> > Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept) Objet : RE: [Dots]
> > WGLC for draft-dots-use-cases-19
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail]
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 7:06 PM
> > > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > <[e-mail]>; Valery Smyslov
> > > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept)
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: RE: [Dots] WGLC for draft-dots-use-cases-19
> > >
> > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> > links or
> > > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> > > content is safe.
> > >
> > > Re-,
> > >
> > > Please see inline.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Envoyé : mardi 6 août 2019 15:08
> > > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Valery Smyslov; [e-mail] Cc :
> > > > Xialiang (Frank, Network Standard & Patent Dept) Objet : RE:
> > > > [Dots] WGLC for draft-dots-use-cases-19
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > > > > > [Med] The recursive case is not covered in the current text.
> > > > > > > I don't
> > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > need to elaborate on this further.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't understand why recursive case should be excluded in
> > > > > > the current text ?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] Because the use-case draft does not cover this: It only
> > > > > covers the
> > > > case
> > > > > of an orchestrator talking to local routers.
> > > >
> > > > My question is why shouldn't the use case draft cover this ?
> > >
> > > [Med] Isn't this captured with the following?
> > >
> > >    o  DDoS Mitigation System (DMS): A system that performs DDoS
> > >       mitigation.  The DDoS Mitigation System may be composed by a
> > >       cluster of hardware and/or software resources, but could also
> > >       involve an orchestrator that may take decisions such as
> > >       outsourcing partial or more of the mitigation to another DDoS
> > >
> > >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > ^^
> > >       Mitigation System.
> > >
> > > And
> > >
> > >    Another typical scenario for this use case is the relation between
> > >    DDoS Mitigation Service Providers forming an overlay of DMS.  When a
> > >    DDoS Mitigation Service Provider mitigating a DDoS attack reaches it
> > >    resources capacities, it may choose to delegate the DDoS
> > > Mitigation
> > to
> > >    another DDoS Mitigation Service Provider.
> >
> > I missed above text, Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  However If orchestrator is enforcing
> > > > > > > > filtering rules on routers, it should create the
> > > > > > > > black-list rules based on the non-spoofed attacker IP
> > > > > > > > address and not use the spoofed victim IP addresses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Med] Agree. Whether the check is done at the orchestrator
> > > > > > > or by the
> > > > > > DMS,
> > > > > > > is not a new concern. The DMS has to proceed with these
> > > > > > > checks,
> > > > anyway.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > fail to see what is NEW and SPECIFIC to the offload scenario.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this case the check has to be done by orchestrator when
> > > > > > enforcing black-list rules not to penalize the spoofed victim
> > > > > > IP addresses and should be discussed in the new use case.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] This requirement has to be followed by the DMS, anyway.
> > > > > This is
> > > > not a
> > > > > new issue, Tiru.
> > > >
> > > > No, sending attack information to the DOTS server is not covered
> > > > in any of the WG documents.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Med] The text is about "additional hints". This is all what DOTS is
> > about :-)
> >
> > Yes, but the NEW text is discussing conveying attack information for
> > the first time and it needs more details.
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  I don't see any other use case in
> > > > > > the specification discussing offload scenario with propagating
> > > > > > the attack information and I recommend updating the text
> > > > > > discussing the above scenarios.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] We don't have a similar text for the DMS case because
> > > > > mitigation
> > > > is
> > > > > out of scope. I'm expecting to follow the some rationale for the
> > > > offload.
> > > >
> > > > If mitigation is out of scope, remove the following line:
> > > > Then the orchestrator can take further actions like requesting
> > > > forwarding nodes such as routers to filter the traffic.
> > >
> > > [Med] This sentence is similar to saying the "DMS starts mitigation"
> > > but
> > with
> > > more contextualized information for a network orchestrator. The
> > > sentence uses "can", "like" which is fine for illustration purposes.
> > > As a reader,
> > I prefer
> > > to leave it.
> >
> > I suggest to add more details discussed in the thread. Anyways, will
> > leave it to you and the authors to decide, and I am not objecting to
> > progressing the draft without the proposed update.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Tiru