IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-07: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Wed, 02 June 2021 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 9838F3A177B; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 MNzRpltZ7uPF; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759CB3A1776; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id e17so3688254iol.7; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ftql7p4C+rxz++8yaA73cSmAPz0fM7jOPlOMTpeektI=; b=daA0yd5C8IxcMTn1PwA3G6bDP2O0+gMWZWIzaEWkzJkIqMp9DImzw4WJ8svJaRWBWS IoZPK0E9yIV3Cjvp8kUZHq5kde7AizgSI2XPRRc8/fA3kNI4QyWJdSHf86IdFuvX+46U UHZapa3Ax4K6qe0rKZdDzl4BSCtgGayWzK+KBS92nzceAJUN07BWNWSqO7ADu2Sk4OQe 35+46xvH7OUngi6BRiUyb3NnbmkdkTfHEVUlHGQytAEOdrwKhwmDLWSq2AiDsIoSx4lC IZL8ibYca5Yc1aeFKP2Up6v9MxYUyQY6g+w6Y0F61G+JigjuDuvk4I74ilPyghBtKa6s AzJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ftql7p4C+rxz++8yaA73cSmAPz0fM7jOPlOMTpeektI=; b=NHAv/9+JNCofi2381ezLLv1bR9Y6EaH+ClflmXyIvxGN6eP2RS1cFe8L9QHkDYx3TT mdSxpQM6uvrj9YLO1skNwuDrWMbSBJ5XgISBNnXEy9XT1i5HpBXBQqwpiA3PEFcTY7Qf xeHl/1yN4hqiZ0oMh8lgmh/IIEw0t/wWGRi6CEcQzd/77vCm9OuYHj/z9dvKKmcug/WJ sEP9YWl4zp7J4Wm2C6ruV6csqNxRXW3GLOp6A6X+xNgPdKsnpiysS2GSPkpMz93D7p9S 3eHN7ewiWSJYLudm1kRGytgEUfQi0bqZXGgUSE5j8UcNNco/RlEyP09/xcoZK2ljCiFI MWkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bh0vMAakXFQaLFzdCJQrLGcw65ko6/gn3XCPuIAz+fe1jMuIz +sbMqEBVcWVJ6vPPq2HxjLXq4EeXr+IeYCqcdonMxo8e7dE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxN9EHZeBEZfBYLgV2j3rECrPisoaTe8dbNrvKsUr6+gu3T1KsEmOLIoAwXUoH7he0gzdVdm31IiiHnn0Rog0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:a619:: with SMTP id q25mr25498434ioi.95.1622661140831; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162258717896.27217.11487555052395475135@ietfa.amsl.com> <26196_1622627385_60B75439_26196_97_8_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933035396207@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAM4esxQsLTyd_4DhojjaOQAUUtH83AN3r=mV-eCmTF6z0wkCHg@mail.gmail.com> <5734_1622656607_60B7C65F_5734_420_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353966F7@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <5734_1622656607_60B7C65F_5734_420_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353966F7@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 12:12:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxR-pXgbzL0tYqxeQQPWyvrogZ_aOA6LRonAojLYLffQCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "valery@smyslov.net" <valery@smyslov.net>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3e19605c3cd3cf1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Ov9WvrV5DdqAGfTMMUvi0w9oq-o>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-07: (with 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: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 19:12:28 -0000

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:56 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

>       DOTS servers MUST return 4.09 (Conflict) error code to a DOTS
>       peer to notify that the 'cuid' is already in use by another
>       DOTS client.  Upon receipt of that error code, a new 'cuid'
>       MUST be generated by the DOTS peer (e.g., using [RFC4122]).
>
>
>
> That's not what I read from Fig. 11. The conflict response has a cuid that
> has not previously appeared in the exchange. Maybe Fig. 11 is wrong?
>
>
>
> *[Med] The example does not depend on previous ones but I understand that
> it is better if a cuid used in previous examples is used here as well.
> Updated the example to use the cuid used in previous figures. *
>
>
>
> *Please note that the “conflict response” does not include a cuid. *
>

I cannot reconcile your statement with Figure 11:

     (2) Message body of the 4.09 (Conflict) response
       from the DOTS server

     Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
     Uri-Path: ".well-known"
     Uri-Path: "dots"
     Uri-Path: "mitigate"
     Uri-Path: "cuid=f30d281ce6b64fc5a0b91e"
     Uri-Path: "mid=12"

The rest looks good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email