Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 5:50 PM
> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>;
> Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> 
> 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-,
> 
> OK.
> 
> As per redirected signaling, the WG has only this requirement for the signal
> channel (SIG-005).

SIG-005 is explicitly discussing redirected signaling because of the attack condition.
I don't see a reason why redirect signaling is not applicable to DOTS data channel to increase the DOTS server
operational flexibility and scalability.

-Tiru

> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Konda,
> > Tirumaleswar Reddy Envoyé : lundi 3 décembre 2018 12:18 À : BOUCADAIR
> > Mohamed TGI/OLN; Roman Danyliw; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Dots] WGLC
> > on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> >
> > Thanks Med, update looks good; just one Nit Redirected signaling is
> > also applicable to DOTS data channel (replace "DOTS signal channel
> > session" with "DOTS session").
> >
> > -Tiru
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 12:17 PM
> > > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> <[e-mail]>;
> > > Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Tiru,
> > >
> > > I updated the file to take into account your feedback:
> > >
> > > Xml:
> > > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-
> > ietf-
> > > dots-architecture-09.xml
> > > Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-
> > > Reviews/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.txt%20dr
> > > aft-
> > ietf-
> > > dots-architecture-09.pdf
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Konda,
> > > > Tirumaleswar Reddy Envoyé : vendredi 30 novembre 2018 17:14 À :
> > > > BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Roman Danyliw; [e-mail] Objet :
> Re:
> > > > [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> > > >
> > > > Hi Med,
> > > >
> > > > I don't fully agree with some of the updates.  I propose the
> > > > following
> > > > changes:
> > > >
> > > > [1] Replace " A DOTS session can be a DOTS data channel session or
> > > > a DOTS signal channel session" with "A DOTS session can be a DOTS
> > > > data channel session or a DOTS signal channel session or both."
> > > > [2] I thought we agreed to say the following:
> > > > A DOTS signal channel session is associated with a single
> > > > transport connection (TCP or UDP session) and an ephemeral
> > > > security association (e.g. a TLS or DTLS session). Similarly,  a
> > > > DOTS data channel session is associated with a single TCP
> > > > connection and an ephemeral TLS security
> > > association.
> > > > [3] Direct and recursive signaling is applicable to both DOTS
> > > > signal and data channel sessions, replace "DOTS signal channel
> > > > session" with
> > "DOTS
> > > session".
> > > > [4] In Section 3.1.2, replace "session" with "DOTS session"
> > > > [5] Remove the following line:
> > > > "These sessions may belong to the same or distinct DOTS channels
> > > > (signal or data).
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > -Tiru
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: [e-mail]
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 5:40 PM
> > > > > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > <[e-mail]>;
> > > > > Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> > > > >
> > > > > 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-,
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, I also made on my side some changes that I'd like to see
> > > > > made to fix
> > > > the
> > > > > issues we discussed so far:
> > > > >
> > > > > Xml:
> > > > > https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/dra
> > > > > ft-
> > > > ietf-
> > > > > dots-architecture-09.xml
> > > > > Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-
> > > > > Reviews/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.txt%
> > > > > 20dr
> > > > > aft-
> > > > ietf-
> > > > > dots-architecture-09.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to reuse the modified version.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Removing parts that were agreed and focusing on the last
> > > > > pending
> > > > > one)
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > DOTS data channel draft is not using the term "DOTS
> > > > > > > > > > data channel session", we can fix the signal channel
> > > > > > > > > > draft to use "DOTS data channel" instead of "DOTS data
> > > > > > > > > > channel
> > session".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Med] May be. BTW, this part of the text:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > " Conversely, a
> > > > > > > > >    DOTS session cannot exist without an established
> > > > > > > > > signal channel
> > > > "
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > is conflicting with this one:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > To allow for DOTS
> > > > > > > > >    service flexibility, neither the order of contact nor
> > > > > > > > > the
> > time
> > > > > > > > >    interval between channel creations is specified.  A
> > > > > > > > > DOTS client
> > > > MAY
> > > > > > > > >    establish signal channel first, and then data
> > > > > > > > > channel, or vice
> > > > > > versa."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Med] This one is still pending.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above line looks clear to me, what is the confusion ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] The problem is not with the last line with this one:
> > > > >
> > > > > "DOTS session cannot exist without an established signal channel"
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means that dots signal channel session is a pre-requisite
> > > > > for DOTS
> > > > data
> > > > > channel. This is conflict with the other excerpt I cited.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots