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

[<[e-mail]>]

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. 

> 
> 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