Re: [Dots] draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01 feedback
Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com> Mon, 14 November 2016 03:02 UTC
Return-Path: <fandreas@cisco.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 3084D12945E for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:02:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 88f6ZRLjIM4s for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5758129441 for <dots@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:02:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10007; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1479092571; x=1480302171; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ZG3rglZ7q+uLnRvHAnlVYpYAxH1fxMscU8y2cqan30w=; b=KzFIQamd34YWsiMfu+2KBd4Gh3zaALvg+BtwBv2aI9ziJsi0b8i2vyqI Q9rGbNIFuXQ+BdmTTT/3ilUTeGaEjgvHn2K+GSOhp454K6bOeskpyombz XDeBxOeMF4pj/AMkhaPxgDyZnwKrH5bp8dJRRvIFQarhQgvdO0Oi549XT o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.31,488,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="65153597"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-1.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Nov 2016 03:02:47 +0000
Received: from [10.70.230.12] (tky-vpn-client-230-12.cisco.com [10.70.230.12]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uAE32kC4018381; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 03:02:46 GMT
To: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, "'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'" <tireddy@cisco.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104EAEB7B@marathon>
From: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <7e60286b-79a6-8c94-53aa-d73b6387bd9d@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:02:45 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104EAEB7B@marathon>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------07A4182A1F952E19EB7F8B72"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/bgBTPUSNQ93R7hrJExYnAaHSsUA>
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01 feedback
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 14 Nov 2016 03:02:53 -0000
On 11/11/16 9:50 AM, Roman D. Danyliw wrote: > > Hello Flemming and Tiru! > > (chair hat off) > > In reading through draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01, I had the > following comments/questions: > > (1) The title suggests that the goal is for an information _and_ data > model to be documented. I didn’t see much distinction made between > the two in the text. Is the thinking to cover both? > I'm not so sure at this point. We have a number of protocol draft proposals at this point, each of which basically include their own data model. The idea with this draft was to come up with a protocol agnostic way of representing the information that was needed for DOTS, so contrary to my original claim, it is probably headed more in the way of an information model draft. > (2) I really like the enumeration of information elements in Section > 3.4 and think this will be helpful for the authors of the solutions > drafts. I struggled with the Section 3.2 a bit and may not fully > understand what you had in mind. My thinking for an information model > document would be enumerating and describing information elements; and > where appropriate, the interrelationship between them. The current > text seems to go one step further with protocol semantics and abstract > message formats. I would have considered these out of scope for an > information model. > I found it difficult to come up with what information elements we want to have without some kind of "information exchange model" in mind and hence what you see in Section 3.2 is an attempt at a protocol agnostic way of describing this in the form of a logical API, while adhering to the overall requirements and architecture (e.g. signal channel with request/response for some exchanges while others need to work unidirectionally, plus a data channel). The API can map to any underlying protocol you desire (e.g. HTTP, COAP, protobufs, or something else running on top of your favorite transport) and there are no assumptions or requirements around exactly how that mapping is done (e.g. 1:1 in terms of messages or not). > (3) In Section 3.1, the parameters categorized as mandatory, optional > and extensions. Is the text implying that these are three mutually > exclusive categories? For example, an extension, when used, cannot > have mandatory fields? > I suppose an extension can always define its own internal structure with some parts mandatory and some not, but the intent was that a particular extension is either supported by a particular implementation or not. > (4) Section 3.1 - 3.3 discuss message parameters. Section 3.4 > enumerates information elements. The link between parameters and > information elements is never explicitly stated. > We'll fix that in the next version. Thanks for the comments Roman -- Flemming > Roman >
- [Dots] draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01 fe… Roman D. Danyliw
- Re: [Dots] draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-0… Flemming Andreasen