Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 11:26 AM
> To: Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>; dots@ietf.org
> Cc: dots-chairs@ietf.org; kaduk@mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
> 
> 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.
> 
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Valery Smyslov
> > Envoyé : mercredi 24 avril 2019 07:02 À : dots@ietf.org Cc :
> > dots-chairs@ietf.org; kaduk@mit.edu Objet : Re: [Dots] Adoption call
> > for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we received a lot of replies supporting adoption of the document.
> > So, the document is adopted. Authors, please re-submit it as WG draft.
> >
> > A couple of comments.
> > 1. The draft uses few times a keyword "MAY NOT". This combination is not
> >      among the list of RFC requirement keywords (it is not listed neither
> >      in RFC2119, nor in RFC8174). If the intent was to use RFC requirement
> >      language, then I'd suggest replacing it with one of MUST NOT,
> > SHALL NOT,
> >      SHOULD NOT. Otherwise please make it lowcase.
> >
> 
> [Med] Good catch. Fixed.
> 
> > 2. When describing transport, the draft allows both TLS and DTLS. What
> >      makes me confusing is that the draft describes it several times
> > as "TCP/TLS or DTLS".
> >      Why TCP is ever mentioned here? We all know that TLS usually runs over
> >      TCP (however we now have QUICK) and DTLS runs over UDP.
> >      The way it is presented in the draft makes me think that probably
> >      plain TCP is also allowed as a transport, but is seems to contradict
> >      everything I read about DOTS. Am I missing something here?
> >
> 
> [Med] Plain TCP is not allowed. The intent was to be explicit that there is a
> reversal in both TCP and TLS layers, but as you rightfully raised this may be
> confusing since, for the DOTS case, it is trivial that the reversal of TLS roles
> implies the reversal of TCP ones. 

RESTCONF call home only reverses the TCP role but not the TLS role. In DOTS case, the server has to initiate DTLS handshake for UDP. To keep the roles same for TCP,  TLS handshake is also initiated by the server.

> The use of TCP/TLS is OK but may be
> confusing. I changed TCP/TLS to TLS.

Role reversal at TLS does not mean necessarily mean role reversal at TCP.

-Tiru

> 
> > Regards,
> > Valery.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the chairs recently received an adoption request for
> > draft-reddy-dots-home-
> > > network-04.
> > >
> > > This message starts a two-week adoption call for
> > > draft-reddy-dots-home- network-04.
> > > The call ends up on Tuesday, April the 23rd.
> > >
> > > Please send your opinion regarding adoption of this document to the
> > > list before this date.
> > > If you think the draft should be adopted, please indicate whether
> > > you're
> > willing
> > > to review it/to work on it. If you think the draft should not be
> > > adopted,
> > please
> > > explain why.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Frank & Valery.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > Dots@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots