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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 02 May 2019 08:30 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 7D46112030E; Thu, 2 May 2019 01:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 YnaBNwhErz_V; Thu, 2 May 2019 01:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11F4512030C; Thu, 2 May 2019 01:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44vpPX3fyhz1ys1; Thu, 2 May 2019 10:30:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.70]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 44vpPX2s9qzFpWX; Thu, 2 May 2019 10:30:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 2 May 2019 10:30:52 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
CC: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org>, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVAL/N+P1178goGEq12CwNDFIe5aZXgDIQ
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 08:30:51 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA68B47@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155676213548.2612.17892772935784304109.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA68A8D@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <474C0602-E496-4577-B772-9BF9B6DCA28A@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <474C0602-E496-4577-B772-9BF9B6DCA28A@fastmail.fm>
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/_39uVHry2D1vJ09IAM2hurVsP1Y>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper'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: Thu, 02 May 2019 08:31:00 -0000

Re-,

Actually, there is no interoperability problem. 

The implementers do only need to look at tables 4 and 6:

   All parameters in the payload of the DOTS signal channel MUST be
   mapped to CBOR types as shown in Table 4.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelnikov@fastmail.fm]
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 mai 2019 10:20
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : Alissa Cooper; The IESG; draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang
> Xia; dots@ietf.org; dots-chairs@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2 May 2019, at 08:18, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> >> = Section 13.1 =
> >>
> >> I don't understand why RFC 7951 is a normative reference but
> >> draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor is an informative reference.
> >
> > [Med] We used to have both as informative references, but unless I'm
> mistaken 7951 was moved to normative so that at least one method is
> supported.
> 
> As other IESG reviewers pointed out (better than my own description), having
> 2 non identical ways to encode the same information is going to cause
> interoperability problems. It also forces implementations to support both
> encodings and it makes draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor Normative.
> 
> I would encourage the WG to pick one mechanism. If it ends up being draft-
> ietf-core-yang-cbor, I am happy to progress it quick. (CORE WG is one of the
> WGs I am responsible for)
> 
> Best Regards,
> Alexey