IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dots] 答复: Unique use cases

"Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Thu, 31 March 2016 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.xialiang@huawei.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 9B83212D6E6 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Bn1Wtdl8zUr5 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 284D112D548 for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOM05876; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:44:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 03:44:17 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.36]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:44:03 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Unique use cases
Thread-Index: AdGKCJbai02bV9oeSSmarut46dOgpAA61p0w
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 02:44:02 +0000
Message-ID: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AF2678A@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96F75B8@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96F75B8@marathon>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0201.56FC8F03.0041, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.36, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 567ee98639625051aafc0e61914c84ef
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/NlSrG5tuk1f5Yfnyo2ej16Q0RCc>
Subject: [Dots] 答复: Unique use cases
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 31 Mar 2016 02:44:22 -0000

Hi Roman,
It's indeed a problem that we need make clear and solve. Please see my response inline:

In summary, we should consolidate all these use cases into several generalized use cases with minimum numbers and clarify their relations clearly, IMHO.

B.R.
Frank

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Roman D. Danyliw
发送时间: 2016年3月30日 6:31
收件人: dots@ietf.org
主题: [Dots] Unique use cases

Hello!

There have been three drafts to date describing use cases for DOTS:

** [WG-UC] draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01
** [ID-UC] draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01
** [IDC-UC] draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00

[WG-UC] describes 7 primary use cases (numbered [WG-UC]-1 to [WG-UC]-7); [ID-UC] describes 5 uses cases; and [IDC-UC] describes 2 use cases.  Of these 14 use cases across three drafts, are any: duplicates? more specific instances of another use case? appropriate for a more generalized use case?
[Frank]: draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01's last 2 use cases are the same as draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00's 2 use cases. So, we have 12 use cases in this step. And we can further consolidate them, I believe.

(1) What's the difference between [WG-UC]'s [WG-UC]-2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 beyond the kind of device acting as the DOTS client?  The write-ups are nearly identical.
[Frank]: Your understanding is right. My suggestion is to consider how to compress them in next version.

(2) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [UD-UC]-1 (Section 4.1.1) and 2 (Section 4.1.2); and [WG-UC]-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6?

(3) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [ID-UC]-3 (Section 4.2.1) and [ID-UC]-4 (Section 4.2.2); and [IDC-UC]-1 (Section 3.1)?
[Frank]: In theory, I think they should be the same use cases, IMHO.

(4) [ID-UC]-5 and [IDC-UC]-2 appear to be acknowledged as the same use case in Section 4.2.3 of [ID-UC].  Is that correct?
[Frank]: yes.

Roman

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email