Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 14:11 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 E865A120089; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 6nMkIyilJjvh; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7226120072; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 07:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45ffzN5lhpzBrqb; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:11:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.86]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45ffzN4s3vz3wbH; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:11:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:11:28 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.all@ietf.org>
CC: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17
Thread-Index: AQHVMSa/OPXazqApP0OTwhn2y7Ux66a6gFUA
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 14:11:27 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EABF7CD@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20190702223654.GF13810@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190702223654.GF13810@kduck.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
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/anlMrdkYUFcCbv0Vlr8OlfXAM78>
Subject: Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17
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, 04 Jul 2019 14:11:32 -0000

Hi Ben, all,

Please see one comment inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Benjamin Kaduk
> Envoyé : mercredi 3 juillet 2019 00:37
> À : draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.all@ietf.org
> Cc : dots@ietf.org
> Objet : [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17
> 
> First off, a few housekeeping items:
>  
> (3) Recently the IESG has been trying to exert some gentle backpressure
> against publishing Informational use-cases/requirements drafts, when they
> serve only as input to future protocol specifications and do not have
> lasting archival value on their own.  I do see in the shepherd writeup
> that
> the working group did reach consensus to publish this document and think
> there's enough value in it to be worth publishing; I just mention this so
> that people aren't surprised if the IESG evaluation comes back with
> questions about whether we should be publishing the document at all.
> 

[Med] FWIW, the WG discussed this point early in the process and made a decision to publish. Please check https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/l0phQdpmSc4j6XhfxUyx-lrrDzk. This pointer may be added to the write-up, IMO.