Re: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)

"Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com> Mon, 22 July 2019 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <tirumaleswarreddy_konda@mcafee.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 60B241201B8 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=mcafee.com
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 7JGDI2FkP3ZO for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-210.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-210.mimecast.com [63.128.21.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0AD21201A8 for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 01:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-NAI-Header: Modified by McAfee Email Gateway (5500)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mcafee.com; s=s_mcafee; t=1563785189; h=ARC-Seal: ARC-Message-Signature:ARC-Authentication-Results: From:To:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index: Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product:dlp-version:dlp-reaction:authentication-results: x-originating-ip:x-ms-publictraffictype:x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: x-microsoft-antispam:x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: x-ms-exchange-purlcount:x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers:x-forefront-prvs: x-forefront-antispam-report:received-spf:x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: X-OriginatorOrg:X-NAI-Spam-Flag:X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: X-NAI-Spam-Score:X-NAI-Spam-Version; bh=g HnScBHeFRxehzkUiQA/WX3ReoUos0LplR9KweyCsX A=; b=aOipk9ljTIt4OyVr0zoa6Pz6HSTErkaVEStPlfC/zwCN ZlZ2Z//yx7ut4YZUcj1REiT5KT7yd2e4OaqOMT1EEtzkILdWO3 B9TVRluVCPTfCy5/6MI7hiT4JlQie/eWuNHSELCLRSzgYXCvOL QDX9yMqpx+ZImL4+HvnhdiXHk5k=
Received: from DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com (dnvwsmailout1.mcafee.com [161.69.31.173]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-266-r_ELldnaO5exXW2qI25jSg-1; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 04:57:41 -0400
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com (unknown [10.44.48.90]) by DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384) id 298c_6161_cc17e6b5_2663_411e_93f9_b83bc6fb4abc; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 02:46:28 -0600
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N05.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.89) by DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 02:57:38 -0600
Received: from DNVO365EDGE1.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.176.66) by DNVEXAPP1N05.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 02:57:38 -0600
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.44.176.240) by edge.mcafee.com (10.44.176.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 02:57:37 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KgJT1HOJj/uEMJBlpspDqJMwJjeK4BUXNbOsoTb1rHeCNyh5dam7UlGV0Yl5KApJVZZw+hxh/ZqaAeRJnOk2TAm2Ga4lnLHoGm6lJxQyDWtouiACPhoJGFf7wLBfm2l4/yj6V26kCFbVCSybmoG66Ck+lJzCuy0Qxfn5F4N7NoHVtrPaHProNprO+D6qlSlscqXnoVRzVXye1LKk235q9lee5gQvGhvJWFjJCBhoi1lrttjlQAoYXMQHgXSgMS7cBfhLVtcPa11KmHdr+SJABZzamVjIpA6QEWe0D4DicX6Ltza7h6CJZnLImAA8SxP5aRSO7ZmEQi7oz8n9EIO5EA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=gHnScBHeFRxehzkUiQA/WX3ReoUos0LplR9KweyCsXA=; b=dEyO2bkpR8Hyq0ivPyd1i7gwifqm40I1b+kyVvliK228udh1jgBmycb6V2nBKbNY6lrrjimQLhumgViA/5qhksPIlEFSJs+v3Nm2CehfkG7UxjFNuSITwl3kXcIqNNOo4RYriCf0b6ZnDpcENdmQU2rqu94zour1L/z7yIlCPqmNU/46UpBZSPrYJnv+hf7qnWdEpNoyXQRwGfiumHUUeSEwLj7s8KjUO1OdEcDJL6oXwHs+CRD398opIOTWcu6IgHS9EWuDRJ8psWi9xGceoSI1kESatJGOvDlRvqYBh/OtmgmcMDpNK+uWPoC9cYwsMHrQX2UNzLR03u4nz6JMbA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mcafee.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=mcafee.com;dkim=pass header.d=mcafee.com;arc=none
Received: from DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.172.44.147) by DM5PR16MB1529.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.173.212.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2094.16; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:57:36 +0000
Received: from DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::570:2208:75c2:5f17]) by DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::570:2208:75c2:5f17%8]) with mapi id 15.20.2094.013; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:57:36 +0000
From: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, "Valery Smyslov" <valery@smyslov.net>, 'Benjamin Kaduk' <kaduk@mit.edu>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
Thread-Index: AdU9/zWZw7DhsbF6RNCA2PYrEJMCCAAJ+IgAAABxlPAAHmWBgABucluAAAF8LhA=
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:57:36 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR16MB17050AC5EABA8D76DDB42ACBEAC40@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302FA841A9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <00c201d53e27$194cfc20$4be6f460$@smyslov.net> <DM5PR16MB1705B5FC8E9204012E34636FEACB0@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <011701d53ea2$74d81540$5e883fc0$@smyslov.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E32E9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330312E32E9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.3.0.16
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [103.245.47.20]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f65af22a-1ad0-4643-ecf6-08d70e82a488
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR16MB1529;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR16MB1529:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR16MB1529D101D21B4226D31F0E18EAC40@DM5PR16MB1529.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 01068D0A20
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(39860400002)(136003)(346002)(376002)(366004)(13464003)(51444003)(189003)(199004)(32952001)(80792005)(76116006)(52536014)(66556008)(81166006)(81156014)(66946007)(5660300002)(66446008)(8676002)(3846002)(8936002)(66476007)(14454004)(64756008)(68736007)(6246003)(9686003)(6306002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(55016002)(53936002)(2171002)(86362001)(305945005)(229853002)(76176011)(966005)(102836004)(7736002)(2906002)(74316002)(110136005)(66066001)(316002)(2501003)(6436002)(2201001)(256004)(446003)(5024004)(14444005)(25786009)(11346002)(33656002)(6116002)(6506007)(26005)(486006)(7696005)(53546011)(99286004)(478600001)(186003)(476003)(85282002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR16MB1529; H:DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 6SlFTwX4q1v2HHji1xkTGlKnZxUWEKMrVOa/1jgrNtJkh8f0eBia9kF3Y5QxsvKLhQODs175BKByjZXUxHjPHxqSVaL4H8te8qS23yYT+PkytzPQFWpOkZ0T0unb9KmHwidma5Qyj6P3EAHFNeZGM2CpKCc/UE4ZFf5oNQstHrkfAoAS3IA9jd5wORZ/KTxTah+rwsz/WX6sZ2vlXU/0uFgV0ZPkBzx3ebBJToeXBJ1UryfIhsrQguN130BGyg8aFhBZvDGUd0VnyOERc2WdDvDoC2eJbv/RAL8wQ8kxBoVOuDF49OlqRW4bNlTtk8S+YPDh5Hpsdt49/ZEpNavwVzfg9DPgy0gj34DKcArMSyFC0i1E+mLws8j3rW7/Blx+mIIgOg+w9uG9J4pt0cNhP5Q3cbV4bJtPX46cydZY1X8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f65af22a-1ad0-4643-ecf6-08d70e82a488
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jul 2019 08:57:36.3767 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4943e38c-6dd4-428c-886d-24932bc2d5de
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR16MB1529
X-OriginatorOrg: mcafee.com
X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO
X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 15
X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0
X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6594> : inlines <7122> : streams <1828078> : uri <2870718>
X-MC-Unique: r_ELldnaO5exXW2qI25jSg-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/agc9wHbq2i6VXmS3Yiz-ZmI2HGs>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:57:52 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 12:38 PM
> To: Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net>et>; Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>om>; 'Benjamin Kaduk'
> <kaduk@mit.edu>du>; dots-chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
> 
> 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.
> 
> Hi Valery,
> 
> Actually, we have clarified that (see for example,
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/21wgxXEy-
> vWecFZK9BeviBFMdnA)
> 
> > All the message transmission parameters including missing-hb- allowed
> > are configurable using the DOTS signal channel (see draft-ietf-
> > dots-signal-channel-35#section-4.5) and these message transmission
> > parameter including the missing-hb-allowed is only used for UDP transport.
> 
> We can add this NEW text to Section 4.5 If this would help:
> 
>    When the DOTS signal channel is established over a reliable transport
>    (e.g., TCP), there is no need for the reliability mechanisms provided
>    by CoAP over UDP since the underlying TCP connection provides
>    retransmissions and deduplication [RFC8323].  As such, the
>    transmission-related parameters (missing-hb-allowed and acceptable
>    signal loss ratio) are negotiated only for DOTS over unreliable
>    transports.

I propose to slightly modify the text as follows:

    When the DOTS signal channel is established over a reliable transport
    (e.g., TCP), there is no need for the reliability mechanisms provided
    by CoAP over UDP since the underlying TCP connection provides
    retransmissions and deduplication [RFC8323].  As a reminder, Confirmable  and Non-confirmable message types are specific to unreliable transport, and 
    are not supported in CoAP over TCP.  As such, the message
    transmission-related parameters (missing heartbeats allowed and acceptable
    signal loss ratio) are negotiated only for DOTS over unreliable
    transports. If the CoAP ping us unacknowledged for a specific duration (i.e. TCP user timeout expires), TCP will forcefully close the connection, and the DOTS client will have 
     to re-establish the TCP connection.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Valery Smyslov [mailto:valery@smyslov.net] Envoyé : samedi 20
> > juillet 2019 04:26 À : 'Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy'; BOUCADAIR Mohamed
> > TGI/OLN; 'Benjamin Kaduk'; dots-chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org Objet :
> > RE: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
> >
> > Hi Tiru,
> >
> > thank you for clarification regarding TCP. It seems the this
> > clarification somehow escaped from the discussion with Mirja (at least
> > I cannot recall it was mentioned).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Valery.
> >
> > > Hi Valery,
> > >
> > > The message transmission parameters including missing-hb-allowed is
> > > only
> > for
> > > UDP transport (not for TCP). For the UDP, she is suggesting us to go
> > with a
> > > mechanism that checks both side of the connectivity using non-
> > confirmable
> > > message with ping and pong at the application layer instead of
> > > relying
> > on the
> > > CoAP ping/pong.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Tiru
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Valery Smyslov
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 5:13 PM
> > > > To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; 'Benjamin Kaduk'
> > > > <kaduk@mit.edu>du>; dots-chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Dots] Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help
> > > > Needed)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Med,
> > > >
> > > > I believe Mirja's main point was that if you use liveness check
> > > > mechanism in the transport layer, then if it reports that liveness
> > > > check fails, then it _also_ closes the transport session.
> > > >
> > > > Quotes from her emails:
> > > > "Yes, as Coap Ping is used, the agent should not only conclude
> > > > that the DOTS signal session is disconnected but also the Coap
> > > > session and not send any further Coap messages anymore."
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > "Actually to my understanding this will not work. Both TCP
> > > > heartbeat and Coap Ping are transmitted reliably. If you don’t
> > > > receive an ack for these transmissions you are not able to send
> > > > any additional messages and can only close the connection."
> > > >
> > > > I'm not familiar with CoAP, but I suspect she's right about TCP -
> > > > if TCP layer itself doesn't receive ACK for the sent data after
> > > > several retransmissions, the connection is closed.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I understand the current draft allows underlying
> > > > liveness check to fail and has a parameter to restart this check
> > > > several times if this happens. It seems that a new transport
> > > > session will be created in this case (at least if TCP is used). In
> > > > my reading of the draft this seems not been assumed, it is assumed
> > > > that the session remains the same. So, I think that main Mirja's
> > > > concern is that it won't work
> > (at least
> > > with TCP).
> > > >
> > > > I didn't participate in the WG discussion on this, so I don't know
> > > > what was discussed regarding this issue. If it was discussed and
> > > > the WG has come to conclusion that this is not an issue, then I
> > > > believe more text should be added to the draft so, that people
> > > > like Mirja, who didn't participate in the discussion, don't have
> > > > any concerns while
> > reading
> > > the draft.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Valery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > > > > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 9:57 AM
> > > > > To: Benjamin Kaduk (kaduk@mit.edu) <kaduk@mit.edu>du>; dots-
> > > > > chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org
> > > > > Subject: Mirja's DISCUSS: Pending Point (AD Help Needed)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Ben, chairs, all,
> > > > >
> > > > > (restricting the discussion to the AD/chairs/WG)
> > > > >
> > > > > * Status:
> > > > >
> > > > > All DISCUSS points from Mirja's review were fixed, except the
> > > > > one discussed in this message.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Pending Point:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than going into much details, I consider the following as
> > > > > the summary of the remaining DISCUSS point from Mirja:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe there are flaws in the design. First it’s a layer
> > > > > > violation, but if more an idealistic concern but usually
> > > > > > designing in layers is a good approach. But more importantly,
> > > > > > you end up with un-frequent messages which may still terminate
> > > > > > the connection at some point, while what you want is to simply
> > > > > > send messages frequently in an unreliable fashion but a low
> > > > > > rate until the
> > attack is over.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Discussion:
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) First of all, let's remind that RFC7252 does not define how
> > > > > CoAP ping must be used. It does only say:
> > > > >
> > > > > ==
> > > > >       Provoking a Reset
> > > > >       message (e.g., by sending an Empty Confirmable message) is
> > also
> > > > >       useful as an inexpensive check of the liveness of an endpoint
> > > > >       ("CoAP ping").
> > > > > ==
> > > > >
> > > > > How the liveness is assessed is left to applications. So, there
> > > > > is
> > > > > ** no layer violation **.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) What we need isn't (text from Mirja):
> > > > >
> > > > > > to simply send messages frequently in an unreliable fashion
> > > > > > but a low rate until the attack is over "
> > > > >
> > > > > It is actually the other way around. The spec says:
> > > > >
> > > > >   "... This is particularly useful for DOTS
> > > > >    servers that might want to reduce heartbeat frequency or cease
> > > > >    heartbeat exchanges when an active DOTS client has not requested
> > > > >    mitigation."
> > > > >
> > > > > What we want can be formalized as:
> > > > >  - Taking into account DDoS traffic conditions, a check to
> > > > > assess the liveness of the peer DOTS agent + maintain NAT/FW
> > > > > state on on-path
> > > > devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > An much more elaborated version is documented in SIG-004 of RFC
> > 8612.
> > > > >
> > > > > * My analysis:
> > > > >
> > > > > - The intended functionality is naturally provided by existing
> > > > > CoAP
> > > > messages.
> > > > > - Informed WG decision: The WG spent a lot of cycles when
> > > > > specifying the current behavior to be meet the requirements set in
> RFC8612.
> > > > > - Why not an alternative design: We can always define messages
> > > > > with duplicated functionality, but that is not a good design
> > > > > approach especially when there is no evident benefit.
> > > > > - The specification is not broken: it was implemented and tested.
> > > > >
> > > > > And a logistic comment: this issue fits IMHO under the
> > > > > non-discuss criteria in
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/blog/discuss-criteria-iesg-review/#stand-
> > > > undisc.
> > > > >
> > > > > * What's Next?
> > > > >
> > > > > As an editor, I don't think a change is needed but I'd like to
> > > > > hear from Ben, chairs, and the WG.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please share your thoughts and whether you agree/disagree with
> > > > > the above analysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Med
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > Dots@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots