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

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

OK, thanks. 

This is now fixed in -33: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/ 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : vendredi 10 mai 2019 16:00
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : IESG; [e-mail]; Liang Xia;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Med,
> 
> > On May 10, 2019, at 1:35 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alissa,
> >
> > The main reason is that the examples in the draft are using the JSON
> encoding of YANG modelled data.
> 
> This does not necessitate a normative reference. See
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-
> references/
> 
> Alissa
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 23:09
> >> À : Alissa Cooper
> >> Cc : IESG; [e-mail]; Liang Xia;
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Objet : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-
> 31:
> >> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Thanks, the changes look good. However I still don’t understand why RFC
> >> 7951 is listed as a normative reference.
> >>
> >> Alissa
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 1, 2019, at 9:55 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alissa Cooper 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:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> = Section 3 =
> >>>
> >>> "By default, a DOTS signal channel MUST run over port number TBD as
> >>>  defined in Section 9.1, for both UDP and TCP, unless the DOTS server
> >>>  has a mutual agreement with its DOTS clients to use a different port
> >>>  number.  DOTS clients MAY alternatively support means to dynamically
> >>>  discover the ports used by their DOTS servers (e.g.,
> >>>  [I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery])."
> >>>
> >>> MUST implies an absolute requirement, so "MUST ... unless" is a
> >> problematic
> >>> construction. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense together with "MAY
> >>> alternatively," which indicates that port number discovery is an
> >> alternative to
> >>> the fixed to-be-assigned port.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't have time to get very far into draft-boucadair-dots-server-
> >> discovery,
> >>> but it appears that it does not mandate support for any single
> discovery
> >>> mechanism for clients and servers to support. If so, that
> >> "alternatively" seems
> >>> like more of a problem, since it allows for there to be no
> interoperable
> >>> mechanism for clients to discover server ports. I think maybe what was
> >> intended
> >>> here was:
> >>>
> >>> s/MUST/SHOULD/
> >>> s/MAY alternatively/MAY additionally/
> >>>
> >>> = Section 4.4.1 =
> >>>
> >>> (1)
> >>> "In deployments where server-domain DOTS gateways are enabled,
> >>>  identity information about the origin source client domain SHOULD be
> >>>  propagated to the DOTS server.  That information is meant to assist
> >>>  the DOTS server to enforce some policies such as grouping DOTS
> >>>  clients that belong to the same DOTS domain, limiting the number of
> >>>  DOTS requests, and identifying the mitigation scope.  These policies
> >>>  can be enforced per-client, per-client domain, or both.  Also, the
> >>>  identity information may be used for auditing and debugging
> purposes."
> >>>
> >>> Does "identity information" just refer to cdid, or something else?
> >>>
> >>> (2) The constructions "MUST ... (absent explicit policy/configuration
> >>> otherwise)" are problematic. I'm assuming these are meant to be
> SHOULDs.
> >>>
> >>> = Section 13.1 =
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand why RFC 7951 is a normative reference but
> >>> draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor is an informative reference.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> COMMENT:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> = Section 4.4.1 =
> >>>
> >>> "The 'cuid' is intended to be stable when communicating with a
> >>>     given DOTS server, i.e., the 'cuid' used by a DOTS client SHOULD
> >>>     NOT change over time. "
> >>>
> >>> Why is this the recommended behavior?
> >>>
> >>>
> >