[Dots] Status going into the Prague meeting

"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Sun, 19 July 2015 12:49 UTC

From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Status going into the Prague meeting
Thread-Index: AdDCIGm19UmymlV+S5+NT/S2IjDJdw==
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:49:19 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD94BEA83@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/T2NYjynCBBhvCfcsKCdIjHaNU8Q>
Subject: [Dots] Status going into the Prague meeting
Precedence: list

Hello WG!

Just a reminder, we're meeting on Tuesday at 1740 in Congress Hall II.  Unfortunately, we only got 1 hour of official time.  As you can see from the agenda [1], it's very compressed primarily focused on introducing topics leaving little time for discussion.  Our first order of business is to clarify what problems DOTS will solve -- requirements and use cases.

To date, two independent drafts [2] [3] and mailing list discussions have voiced the following use cases:

(1) "On-premise: Symmetric" (Section 3.1 of [2])
(2) "On-premise: Assymetric" (Section 3.2 of [2])
(3) "Cloud" (Section 4 of [2])
(4) "Data mining DDOS protection" (Section 3 of [3])
(5) "NFV Based Distributed DDoS Mitigation" (Section 4 of [3])
(6) "Inbound link saturation attack" (Item 1 of [5])
(7) "N/M inline mitigation through traffic redirection" (Item 2 of [5])
(8) "Virtualized DDoS mitigation appliance" (Item 3 of [5])

If you have additional use cases, please let your thoughts be known on the list.  From the list of articulated use cases, we need to discuss their suitability for the WG, overlap between each other and whether their scope is sufficiently understood.  If you have thoughts on any of those, please comment.

Another independent draft [4] introduced a set of requirements.  The specific draft and the requirements conversation overall needs further discussion.

A number of individual drafts discussing transport [6] [8] and data model [6] [7] [9] have been updated since the BOF [6] [7] and others are new [8] [9] since we met in Dallas.  While it is premature to delve into the specifics, they too can inform our requirements and use case discussion.  Please review these as well.

Safe travels to Prague!
Roman

[1] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/agenda/agenda-93-dots 
[2] draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00
[3] draft-xia-dots-extended-use-cases-00
[4] draft-mortensen-threat-signaling-requirements-00
[5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/QrPIV2Yl2vNaG3um3jMyrMOo8IY
[6] draft-teague-open-threat-signaling-01
[7] draft-fu-ipfix-network-security-01
[8] draft-reddy-dots-transport-00
[9] draft-reddy-dots-info-model-00

[Dots] Status going into the Prague meeting Roman D. Danyliw
Re: [Dots] Status going into the Prague meeting Tobias Gondrom