Re: [Dots] [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block (No-Response)

supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com Thu, 18 February 2021 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jon.shallow@jpshallow.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 9EBCD3A13EA for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:29:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 D2h_fIavX7ik for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.jpshallow.com (mail.jpshallow.com [217.40.240.153]) (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 E18C43A13F9 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.jpshallow.com ([192.168.0.3] helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1lCjCt-0005KZ-7A; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:18:59 +0000
From: <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: <christian@amsuess.com>, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc: <draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org>, <dots@ietf.org>, <core@ietf.org>
References: <23740_1612339780_601A5A44_23740_98_8_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315C6374@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <28095_1608732578_5FE34FA2_28095_105_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330315A1C90@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <YCxbAwzDUp5kXTjq@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
In-Reply-To: <YCxbAwzDUp5kXTjq@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:19:02 -0000
Message-ID: <004401d705f8$a0333de0$e099b9a0$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKB62JphLL4G1Ld1UlfNpXpEuFZPqkIBQCQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/SEj4-KyvhcpN3I-sSTykqwm9pQo>
Subject: Re: [Dots] [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block (No-Response)
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:29:30 -0000

Hi Christian,

We have gone with adding to Section 1.1

" The No-Response Option was considered but was abandoned as it does not
apply to Q-Block2 responses. A unified solution is defined in the document."

Regards

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian M. Amsüss [mailto:christian@amsuess.com]
> Sent: 16 February 2021 23:54
> To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Cc: draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org; core@ietf.org WG
> (core@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block
(No-Response)
> 
> Hello Med,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 08:09:40AM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> wrote:
> > As a follow-up on this issue, we finally went with an approach that
> > does not require No-Response. We do have the following to avoid extra
> > delays, e.g.,
> 
> The need to indicate when a client wants confirmation has been avoided by
> having timeouts on both sides, and relying more on MAX_PAYLOADS being
> aligned.
> 
> For my taste, that makes unnecessary sacrifices in robustness over the
simple
> two-byte NoResponse:0 that'd go with every MAX_PAYLOADS'th
> Q-Block2 from the client (and would completey avoid the risk of stalling
in a
> lossless situation).
> 
> (For the other direction, corective heuristics can easily be applied).
> 
> But given they are explicitly configured in the DOTS case where Q-Block is
used,
> so -- well. Food for a block-bis (or generalized additions that allow
block to be
> used that way).
> 
> 
> That aside, in the interest of readers who try to understand the ecosystem
and
> the trade-offs involved, I think that at least a reference to it in a
statement like
> "was not chosen because of X" would be helpful. The "Note that similar
> performance benefits" section would lend itself to that. Text suggestion:
> 
>   [messages are provided in Appendix A.] Similarly, The No-Response option
>   can be applied to Block1 requests, but offers no corresponding facility
>   for Block2 responses.
> 
> BR
> c
> 
> --
> To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater
powers.
>   -- Bene Gesserit axiom