Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

> On May 10, 2019, at 1:35 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa, 
> 
> The main reason is that the examples in the draft are using the JSON encoding of YANG modelled data.

This does not necessitate a normative reference. See https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/

Alissa

> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 23:09
>> À : Alissa Cooper
>> Cc : IESG; [e-mail]; Liang Xia;
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
>> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> Thanks, the changes look good. However I still don’t understand why RFC
>> 7951 is listed as a normative reference.
>> 
>> Alissa
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 1, 2019, at 9:55 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: Discuss
>>> 
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
>> criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> = Section 3 =
>>> 
>>> "By default, a DOTS signal channel MUST run over port number TBD as
>>>  defined in Section 9.1, for both UDP and TCP, unless the DOTS server
>>>  has a mutual agreement with its DOTS clients to use a different port
>>>  number.  DOTS clients MAY alternatively support means to dynamically
>>>  discover the ports used by their DOTS servers (e.g.,
>>>  [I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery])."
>>> 
>>> MUST implies an absolute requirement, so "MUST ... unless" is a
>> problematic
>>> construction. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense together with "MAY
>>> alternatively," which indicates that port number discovery is an
>> alternative to
>>> the fixed to-be-assigned port.
>>> 
>>> I didn't have time to get very far into draft-boucadair-dots-server-
>> discovery,
>>> but it appears that it does not mandate support for any single discovery
>>> mechanism for clients and servers to support. If so, that
>> "alternatively" seems
>>> like more of a problem, since it allows for there to be no interoperable
>>> mechanism for clients to discover server ports. I think maybe what was
>> intended
>>> here was:
>>> 
>>> s/MUST/SHOULD/
>>> s/MAY alternatively/MAY additionally/
>>> 
>>> = Section 4.4.1 =
>>> 
>>> (1)
>>> "In deployments where server-domain DOTS gateways are enabled,
>>>  identity information about the origin source client domain SHOULD be
>>>  propagated to the DOTS server.  That information is meant to assist
>>>  the DOTS server to enforce some policies such as grouping DOTS
>>>  clients that belong to the same DOTS domain, limiting the number of
>>>  DOTS requests, and identifying the mitigation scope.  These policies
>>>  can be enforced per-client, per-client domain, or both.  Also, the
>>>  identity information may be used for auditing and debugging purposes."
>>> 
>>> Does "identity information" just refer to cdid, or something else?
>>> 
>>> (2) The constructions "MUST ... (absent explicit policy/configuration
>>> otherwise)" are problematic. I'm assuming these are meant to be SHOULDs.
>>> 
>>> = Section 13.1 =
>>> 
>>> I don't understand why RFC 7951 is a normative reference but
>>> draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor is an informative reference.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> = Section 4.4.1 =
>>> 
>>> "The 'cuid' is intended to be stable when communicating with a
>>>     given DOTS server, i.e., the 'cuid' used by a DOTS client SHOULD
>>>     NOT change over time. "
>>> 
>>> Why is this the recommended behavior?
>>> 
>>> 
>