Re: [Dots] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 03 May 2019 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 2EA6B1200EF; Fri, 3 May 2019 02:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 39kh8UyjsSJv; Fri, 3 May 2019 02:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E556D12006D; Fri, 3 May 2019 02:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.67]) by opfednr26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44wRZ40Wdzzyp2; Fri, 3 May 2019 11:25:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.35]) by opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44wRZ36RxfzDq7t; Fri, 3 May 2019 11:25:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::f58e:8e9d:ae18:b9e3%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 3 May 2019 11:25:31 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org>, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU/8rxhy2To8cYWEWyohsPjm9BF6ZXXRIQgAHE6RA=
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 09:25:30 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA6B9AD@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155668001610.28771.2924259500369474716.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA689F6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA689F6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Xql4cSE6XIEYwYEaXAwVHXUAOzc>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and 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: Fri, 03 May 2019 09:25:36 -0000

Suresh, 

We rearranged the text to better indicate where DOTS HE differs from 8305. You can check the changes at:

Txt: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/blob/master/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.txt 
Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.txt%20draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31.pdf 

If any further change/clarification is needed, please let me know. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : mohamed.boucadair@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 mai 2019 08:36
> À : Suresh Krishnan; The IESG
> Cc : draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia; dots-
> chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 1 mai 2019 05:07
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia; dots-
> > chairs@ietf.org; frank.xialiang@huawei.com; dots@ietf.org
> > Objet : Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This should be easy to clear up, but I would like to understand why this
> > document needs to restate the motivation and describe the algorithm for
> happy
> > eyeballs instead of simply stating that hosts should use RFC8305
> 
> [Med] We adopted this elaborated approach because there are specifics to the
> DOTS case that are called out in the text, e.g.,
> * probing to migrate the connection
> * caching (used to be in HE v1)
> 
> Also, unlike RFC8305:
> * we don't cancel all other connections upon establishment of one connection.
> * we don't forbid all attempts to be sent simultaneously.
> 
> All these details are described in the text.
> 
>  and then
> > specify that UDP must be tried before TCP in each of the address families.
> If
> > you do want to specify the whole algorithm here it needs to be more
> specific
> > than "in a manner similar to the Happy Eyeballs mechanism" as it is not
> clear
> > where it is similar (and where it will differ). It also looks like the
> > example
> > flow in Figure 4 is not consistent with the description before (TCP+IPv6
> > before
> > UDP+IPv4)
> 
> [Med] The text says the following:
> 
>    In reference to Figure 4, the DOTS client sends two TCP SYNs and two
>    DTLS ClientHello messages at the same time over IPv6 and IPv4.
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ben suggested in his review to add annotations to Figure 4 but we didn't
> because we though this is redundant with the above text.
> 
> Will add annotations to Figure 4.
> 
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > * Section 7.3
> >
> > This text is wrong and needs to be removed
> >
> > "IP packets whose size does not exceed 576 bytes should never need to be
> > fragmented"
> >
> > RFC791 only requires all hosts to be prepared to accept datagrams of up to
> > 576 octets.
> >
> 
> [Med] Done.