Re: [Dots] Comments on dots-signal-control-filtering-01

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

See inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Konda, Tirumaleswar
> Reddy
> Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2019 08:48
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Takahiko Nagata; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Dots] Comments on dots-signal-control-filtering-01
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 1:01 PM
> > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>;
> > Takahiko Nagata <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Dots] Comments on dots-signal-control-filtering-01
> >
> > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links
> or
> > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> >
> > Tiru,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2019 08:14 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN;
> > > Takahiko Nagata; [e-mail] Objet : RE: [Dots] Comments on
> > > dots-signal-control-filtering-01
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dots <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 12:37 PM
> > > > To: Takahiko Nagata <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dots] Comments on dots-signal-control-filtering-01
> > > >
> > > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> > > > links
> > > or
> > > > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> > > > content is
> > > safe.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Takahiko,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for sharing the comments.
> > > >
> > > > Please see inline.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Med
> > > >
> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Takahiko
> > > > > Nagata Envoyé : jeudi 17 janvier 2019 08:13 À : [e-mail]
> > > > > Objet : [Dots] Comments on dots-signal-control-filtering-01
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Kaname,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to 2 comments on dots-signal-control-filtering-01.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Comment1) Minimal attributes for control-filtering. ("lifetime"
> > > behavior)
> > > > >   Minimal attributes of SignalChannel MitigationRequest
> > > > >   for control-filtering is only the followings, I think.
> > > > >   - acl-list(acl-name, activation-type)
> > > > >   - lifetime
> > > > >
> > > > >   So, We can send acl-list via SignalChannel without
> > > > >   other Mitigation request parameters.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] When the same mid is used, the request is considered as a
> > > > refresh. As such the attributes that were included in the first
> > > > request must be
> > > included.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   In this case, we need to decide behavior of "lifetime".
> > > > >   I think "lifetime" is ignored in this case.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] No. This is a particular case of this text from the signal
> > > > channel
> > > spec:
> > > >
> > > >    For a mitigation request to continue beyond the initial negotiated
> > > >    lifetime, the DOTS client has to refresh the current mitigation
> > > >    request by sending a new PUT request.  This PUT request MUST use the
> > > >    same 'mid' value, and MUST repeat all the other parameters as sent
> in
> > > >    the original mitigation request apart from a possible change to the
> > > >    lifetime parameter value.
> > > >
> > > > >   Because acl-list(acl-name, activation-type) should be
> > > > >   managed only DataChannel side for specification simply.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (Comment2) Should be specified behavior.
> > > > > (a) Not be affected by "trigger-mitigation"
> > > > >   acl-list(acl-name, activation-type) is soon be applied
> > > > >   even if "trigger-mitigation" is false.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] The procedure applies independently of the value of "trigger-
> > > mitigation".
> > > > We can say this explicitly on the draft.
> > >
> > > A Mitigation request with "trigger-mitigation" set to false must only
> > > be sent in the peace time and not during the attack time. During the
> > > peace time, I don't see the need to activate/de-activate ACLs using
> > > DOTS signal channel protocol.
> >
> > [Med] The point is that the control functionality will be there. It is up
> to the
> > client to decide to use:
> >
> > * its data channel to alter the acl and then wait for a signal channel
> notification.
> > These notifications may not be set by the client.
> > * its signal channel to alter the acl.
> >
> > With that approach we don't overload the server with extra validation on
> > trigger-mitigation to decide about the behavior to follow.
> 
> This draft is introduced to alter the ACL using DOTS signal channel only
> during mitigation time because data channel does not work during attack time,
> and ACL alteration using DOTS signal channel  should not be allowed during
> peace time.
> If allowed, the client can use both the DOTS data and signal channels to
> alter the ACL during peace time and can create inconsistent configuration.

[Med] If there is a risk of inconsistent configuration, it won't be specific to this case but a generic one.

> Why use two protocols to do the same job ?

[Med] Because: 
* the functionality is there and its use will be for free.
* the server checks are simplified. No need to do extra checks based on "trigger-mitigation"
* the client may not subscribe to notification. Please note that we don't have a MUST, but a SHOULD. 

> 
> -Tiru
> 
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Tiru
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (b) Do not affect to "Efficacy Update"
> > > > >   acl-list(acl-name, activation-type) would be ignored
> > > > >   at "Efficacy Update" success or reject.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] Agree. We are not updating that part of the signal channel
> > > > spec. acl-
> > > list
> > > > clauses won't be included in the efficacy update.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (c) GET response of Mitigation Request
> > > > >   acl-list(acl-name, activation-type) would not be included
> > > > >   on respose of GET Mitigation Request.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] Yes. Will be make this clear in the draft.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (d) In DELETE, no behavior(ex: rollback) for acl-list.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] Yes.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Takahiko Nagata
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots