Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-06

"Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Wed, 06 November 2019 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <supjps-ietf@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 5F0BE120869; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:12:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 I9EEEePYgJRb; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:12:41 -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 77A6C120120; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:12:41 -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 1iSOrG-0000Lq-G0; Wed, 06 Nov 2019 17:12:38 +0000
From: "Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: "'Valery Smyslov'" <valery@smyslov.net>, <dots@ietf.org>, <dots-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <011c01d58974$74529b00$5cf7d100$@smyslov.net>
In-Reply-To: <011c01d58974$74529b00$5cf7d100$@smyslov.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:12:34 -0000
Message-ID: <1bfc01d594c5$61631810$24294830$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFn6BnZPpB4bEUBCFkfkOrfTcwTQahZsvdw
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/WrEZCl2LYftUVKS_Xfyvv6xDjuA>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-06
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, 06 Nov 2019 17:12:44 -0000

Hi All,

I have done a preliminary working implementation of DOTS Call-Home  - there
is still some little used functionality to finish off.

*** Issue # 1 - TCP TLS sessions

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-06#section-3.1

" If UDP transport is used, the Call Home DOTS server begins by
initiating a DTLS connection to the Call Home DOTS client."

This works as expected where the UDP + DTLS layer roles are switched.

" If TCP is used, the Call Home DOTS server begins by initiating a
TCP connection to the Call Home DOTS client.  Using this TCP
connection, the Call Home DOTS server initiates a TLS connection
to the Call Home DOTS client."

With the current libcoap implementation, I am unable to create a CoAP
session using TLS on an existing TCP connection - so the DOTS Client is
unable to accept an incoming TCP session and then initiate TLS integrated
with the CoAP session.  I agree that RFC8071 only switches the TCP layer
roles.  However all works if the TCP + TLS layer roles are switched - in the
same way that UDP + DTLS work.

Enhancing the libcoap code to support only the TCP layer being switched is
doable - but have no idea as to whether other CoAP implementations can
handle this specific requirement.

*** Not (yet) Implemented #1 - Redirected Signalling

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-06#section-3.2.
2

I do not see any issues here.

*** Not (yet) implemented #2 - New Conflict Cause 4

I do not see any issues here.

*** Not (yet) Implemented #3 - Address sharing considerations

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-06#section-3.3.
2

I do not see any issues here - just need to interface with the translators
to get the appropriate information.

Regards

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:ietf-supjps-dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Valery
> Smyslov
> Sent: 23 October 2019 08:36
> To: dots@ietf.org
> Cc: dots-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-06
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this message starts a Work Group Last Call (WGLC) for
draft-ietf-dots-signal-
> call-home-06.
> The version to be reviewed is here:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dots-
> signal-call-home-06.txt
> 
> The WGLC will last for two weeks and will end on November the 7th.
> Please send your comments to the list before this date.
> 
> Regards,
> Frank & Valery.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots