Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 16 March 2017 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 0EFE8129A7C for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 BKQCSzoPzqzB for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB222129A6F for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.22]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v2GKlZfo021759 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:47:35 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu v2GKlZfo021759
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1489697255; bh=QAaE/JuwBSN10QEUwNZbTO1ApxYhxxM48lT96ytQ8s8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=e9acB2ZBIx0gJsiBYvg9765p5na+1L53hVcSCMUmde0w7g0WVXv090xLN80LlPjtR DhWOqcqiCIvqttSStqzz1k92u8dAfRD4V522wnHJRgmw2TGqgWtwvSFRJVI3OUWeK4 C/+hSSHAXoWNsLWiIx1evUdH4fuH6siBJaqcz/C8=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id v2GKlWeX005073 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:47:32 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:47:32 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: merging requirements and use cases drafts?
Thread-Index: AQHSkSlHPjfCqL/HTUaPO9bSB5JdCKF+D3eQgAARtRCAAAJBUIAZ5tgQ
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:47:31 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F1D124@marathon>
References: <CE7B264D-CAC1-41DF-8650-702E120BFBF9@arbor.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933009E1989A@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <ce1550b82eeb4250a12c1f09622cfd45@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> <E58182C4A35A8E498E553AD3D33FA00101171A327B@ILMB2.corp.radware.com>
In-Reply-To: <E58182C4A35A8E498E553AD3D33FA00101171A327B@ILMB2.corp.radware.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/P9-GCfH3KZ0tmAyFOr0ak4p_-7o>
Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Mar 2017 20:47:39 -0000

Hello all!

Any additional opinions on how to handle the WG requirements and use case drafts?

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ehud Doron
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 4:14 AM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com>;
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Mortensen, Andrew
> <amortensen@arbor.net>; dots@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> 
> All
> 
> +1 on that, I prefer to keep them separate.
> 
> Thanks, Ehud
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tirumaleswar
> Reddy (tireddy)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:08 AM
> To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; Mortensen, Andrew
> <amortensen@arbor.net>; dots@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> 
> I prefer to keep them separate.
> 
> -Tiru
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:37 PM
> > To: Mortensen, Andrew <amortensen@arbor.net>; dots@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> >
> > Hi Andrew, all,
> >
> > I have an alternate proposal:
> > * Maintain the requirements draft with its initial scope.
> > * Abandon the use cases draft.
> >
> > I don't see much value in publishing the use case I-D as an RFC. The
> > requirements I-D is really important as it sketches the scope and
> > required DOTS functionalities.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Mortensen,
> > > Andrew Envoyé : lundi 27 février 2017 19:43 À : dots@ietf.org Objet :
> > > [Dots] merging requirements and use cases drafts?
> > >
> > > During the interim meeting, Kathleen Moriarty observed that it might
> > > be beneficial to merge the requirements and use cases drafts, since
> > > the IESG tends to look more favorably on such drafts.
> > >
> > > We did not continue that discussion during the interim meeting, due
> > > to limited time, but I think it’s something we need to discuss ahead
> > > of the meeting in Chicago. To begin with, I’d like to hear a little
> > > more from Kathleen about why a merged draft is likely to be more
> > > palatable to the IESG. If nothing else, it’d be nice to avoid coming
> > > to the topic cold in Chicago.
> > >
> > > andrew
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dots mailing list
> > > Dots@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > Dots@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots