Re: [Dots] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 06 May 2019 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 759B51201A8; Mon, 6 May 2019 10:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Xe6s28IACmID; Mon, 6 May 2019 10:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 EDB9312019F; Mon, 6 May 2019 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x46HF5h4027102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 6 May 2019 13:15:07 -0400
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 12:15:05 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org>, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190506171504.GK19509@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <155672115649.991.301467308616633255.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA68A2C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA68A2C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/dNvjiu184xSSnEMF3oNAS3klFOk>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 06 May 2019 17:15:19 -0000

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 06:54:15AM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Re-,
> 
> Please see inline. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 1 mai 2019 16:33
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia; dots-
> > chairs@ietf.org; frank.xialiang@huawei.com; dots@ietf.org
> > Objet : Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > In Section 3:
> > 
> >    DOTS agents primarily determine that a CBOR data structure is a DOTS
> >    signal channel object from the application context, such as from the
> >    port number assigned to the DOTS signal channel.
> > 
> > I don't think this is a good idea, because CORE allows for conveying of
> > Content-Format.
> 
> [Med] Agree. We are not recommending it. FWIW, this is why we are defining "application/dots+cbor" content type.

Perhaps the word "primarily" is not quite right, then?

-Ben

>  Besides knowledge of a port number doesn't guaranty that
> > valid
> > CBOR over COAP data is flowing on it.
> > 
> >    The other method
> >    DOTS agents use to indicate that a CBOR data structure is a DOTS
> >    signal channel object is the use of the "application/dots+cbor"
> >    content type (Section 9.3).
> >