IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-14: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 28 October 2020 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 9CC963A08CF; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 lWb19eNQCqeP; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 1A4993A08C4; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09SNllsX005903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:47:51 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:47:46 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dots-chairs@ietf.org, valery@smyslov.net, draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201028234746.GS39170@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160392121572.3395.6848068643884505857@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <160392121572.3395.6848068643884505857@ietfa.amsl.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Se1qtihzUyMbx57ezyk9hWJ6nKQ>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-14: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:47:57 -0000

Hi Barry,

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 02:40:15PM -0700, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Overall discussion question (but not at blocking DISCUSS level):
> Does it make sense for DOTS clients to proactively discover appropriate DOTS
> servers *before* a DDoS attack hits, to avoid the issue of discovery being
> blocked by the attack that the client is trying to report?  Should this
> document discuss that?

And here I had assumed that this was so obvious so as to not need
mentioning.  Apparently not; let's go ahead and mention this explicitly.

> Other comments, all minor:

Thanks for those.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email