IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 3107B120052; Mon, 6 May 2019 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 FQSG5Jx-ph-l; Mon, 6 May 2019 07:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FD25120019; Mon, 6 May 2019 07:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.9]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44yQ2r5C9Sz8t3R; Mon, 6 May 2019 16:23:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.101]) by opfedar07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44yQ2r3qchz5vNP; Mon, 6 May 2019 16:23:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM6F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::c489:b768:686a:545b%23]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 6 May 2019 16:23:48 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org>, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIERpc2N1c3Mgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kb3Rz?= =?utf-8?Q?-signal-channel-31:_(with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHVBBLrtjibErdZ+E+HsN0ik7eR0aZeJOhQ
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 14:23:47 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA6CA2A@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155672175129.924.6789867477696592350.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA68C1A@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <F5FA219E-0124-43D8-A3FE-EAEDDAB7CA22@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <F5FA219E-0124-43D8-A3FE-EAEDDAB7CA22@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/RMPwq2OTIypJSpu1HrXZAv8AKUA>
Subject: Re: [Dots] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?dots-signal-channel-31=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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: Mon, 06 May 2019 14:23:52 -0000

Re-,

Focusing on this particular DISCUSS point. 

This was part of Alexey's DISCUSS. We went with this proposal from Alexey:

==
If you don't want Normative dependency, you should fully specify syntax in your
draft and keep the reference Informative.
==

You may check the changes to address this comment at:
https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.txt%20draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.pdf 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2019 15:52
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : The IESG; draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia; dots-
> chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> >>
> >> 4) draft-ietf-core-hop-limit is used in section 10:
> >> "The presence of DOTS gateways may lead to infinite forwarding loops,
> >>   which is undesirable.  To prevent and detect such loops, this
> >>   document uses the Hop-Limit Option."
> >> This sounds like it should be required (and normative language should be
> >> used)
> >> and therefore draft-ietf-core-hop-limit should also be a normative
> reference.
> >> Also draft-ietf-core-comi should probably another normative reference.
> >
> > [Med] These two items are already covered in the reply to Alexey's review.
> 
> Okay, please move draft-ietf-core-hop-limit to normative.
> 
> I don’t see any discussion about draft-ietf-core-comi…?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email