Re: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: (with COMMENT)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Barry Leiba via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 12:40 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; dots-chairs@ietf.org;
> valery@smyslov.net; dots@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dots-architecture@ietf.org
> Subject: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-architecture/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A well done document; thanks,  I have just a few minor comments:
> 
> — Section 1.1.1 —
> You don’t *quite* have the BCP 14 boilerplate verbatim; please fix that.

Fixed. 

> 
> — Section 1.3 —
> 
>    o  The signal and data channels are loosely coupled, and may not
>       terminate on the same DOTS server.
> 
> I suggest “might not”, lest someone misread it to mean that they are not
> permitted to (the strict English meaning of “may not”).  Look for “may not”
> elsewhere also: I saw it in Section 2 as well, and one or two other places.

Thanks, corrected in other places (Sections 1.3, 2 and 3.2.4.1). 

> 
> — Section 2 —
> 
>    Thus, DOTS neither specifies how an attack target decides it is under
>    DDoS attack, nor does DOTS specify how a mitigator may actually
>    mitigate such an attack.
> 
> The structure of this “neither...nor” doesn’t work.
> 
> NEW
>    Thus, DOTS specifies neither how an attack target decides it is under
>    DDoS attack, nor how a mitigator may actually mitigate such an attack.
> END

Updated in my local copy.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots