IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Mon, 13 March 2017 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 BF1F51297EE for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 GXrOJh7ciI2P for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (plainfield.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323421297AA for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id v2DG82HT019534; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:08:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1489421282; bh=vMN4haWD+zTAa6gD16pUuk6Yx02jY8fwBvzlrN9UcsE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender: Reply-To:Cc; b=aAVK6W67ni2MXHxQIAlO8Uh3ibTuSFt0tzUmNsMoXrx/pGJJjqBtg2Y4tAeYv03SY wXNkEt4Jqi8H4FpZ2Gjcoo73fwaxHfEZ+vH5W7i1dtTcvDyF9juTJqUiXM9DODYIW6 tIeRVdhAnwQFqAR8AH2BuPSHrJ5a3eAzXuGohuqI=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id v2DG81Iv003162; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:08:02 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:08:01 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Zhenghui (Marvin)" <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
Thread-Index: AdKbyycv4ZM58GBcQp6mg2Ssqy0mugAR5PJw
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:08:01 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F19267@marathon>
References: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED0001538042@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED0001538042@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Xv7oGw29lmIxPg8QojMzcUXHwFw>
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:08:18 -0000

Hello Marvin!

Thanks for sharing this update. 

> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:37 AM
> Subject: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
>
[snip]

> However, we’ve realized what our draft intends to do is not 
> what currently DOTS WG is focusing on.
[snip]
> We submitted this draft to DOTS because IPFIX WG had 
> been closed, and DOTS was the best match we found.

To confirm, you do not see this draft as mapping to the existing WG architecture [1] or the protocol requirements [2] (as in part of a signal or data channel)?

Regards,
Roman

[1] draft-ietf-dots-architecture-01
[2] draft-ietf-dots-requirements-03

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email