Re: [Dots] on cyclical normative dependencies

"Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Thu, 28 March 2019 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.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 974A612046F for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 fE1Bd4rBaaqF for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.jpshallow.com (mail.jpshallow.com [217.40.240.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EAFE120404 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1h9SHk-0006v6-Dz; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:29:24 +0000
From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: 'Benjamin Kaduk' <kaduk@mit.edu>, dots@ietf.org
References: <20190328101118.GJ67070@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190328101118.GJ67070@kduck.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:29:22 -0000
Message-ID: <101c01d4e551$1dbcc850$593658f0$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQENbm1LhTHgSHrGFe+coXchoXDVUKevw+Kg
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/aMLFVDWJ4GQ4X2kgPU91NOVRP5g>
Subject: Re: [Dots] on cyclical normative dependencies
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, 28 Mar 2019 10:29:40 -0000

We already have an interaction/dependency between the signal and data
channel over the use of aliases, adding in acls interaction/dependency
should not make much difference if we are going for moving
draft-nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering into signal draft.

Regards

Jon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto: dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin
> Kaduk
> Sent: 28 March 2019 10:11
> To: dots@ietf.org
> Subject: [Dots] on cyclical normative dependencies
> 
> During the session today, Med mentioned at the mic that if we moved the
> content from draft-nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering into the signal
> channel document, then we would have a normative dependency from the
> signal
> channel on the data channel (and the data channel already depends
> normatively on the signal channel), as if this would be problematic.
> 
> I don't think this is inherentely problematic, as it just means that the
> two documents will advance together as a group.  It's still a useful tool
> to be able to separate the content out into logically separate documents
> even if they are interdependent and in some sense must be considered
> together as a consolidated group.  We see this pattern occur regularly in
> the IETF, and it's not worrisome.
> 
> So I don't think that the cyclical dependency is a reason to leave
> signal-control-filtering as a separate document (but I do agree with the
> sentiment in the room that we may want to let this document settle in for
a
> while before we decide that we're happy with it), but given the trend of
> the discussion it didn't seem worth spending the time to say it at the
> microphone.
> 
> -Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots