Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 03 December 2018 06:47 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 2E7E112D4EA for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 22:47:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 ucxgpL_vyH_s for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 22:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 019CF128D68 for <dots@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 22:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 437bC216CLz1yZl; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:47:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.57]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 437bC202z4zDq75; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:47:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::787e:db0c:23c4:71b3%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 07:47:09 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
Thread-Index: AdSGnlgla3cLRB5MRLWQWFaJSQftBABEEW3wAAZceYAAB9nNYAAEkILwAB+EMpAACKXk4AACgplwAAhHgoAAg12NMA==
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 06:47:09 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E050B73@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0184C49169@marathon> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04F649@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BN6PR16MB1425AD85A67FFE5A0EA5A769EAD20@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04F981@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BN6PR16MB1425D2A6BED037A18098CF54EAD20@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04FF7F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BN6PR16MB1425379772574B34E678406DEAD30@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E050207@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DM5PR16MB1436848B4B3EC35B6EF67D9BEAD30@DM5PR16MB1436.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR16MB1436848B4B3EC35B6EF67D9BEAD30@DM5PR16MB1436.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
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/egJs6zwJs8B_AD5UWWdX1BFMC7E>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
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, 03 Dec 2018 06:47:14 -0000

Hi Tiru, 

I updated the file to take into account your feedback:

Xml: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.xml   
Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.txt%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.pdf 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Konda, Tirumaleswar
> Reddy
> Envoyé : vendredi 30 novembre 2018 17:14
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Roman Danyliw; dots@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> 
> Hi Med,
> 
> I don't fully agree with some of the updates.  I propose the following
> changes:
> 
> [1] Replace " A DOTS session can be a DOTS data channel session or a DOTS
> signal channel session" with "A DOTS session can be a DOTS data channel
> session or a DOTS signal channel session or both."
> [2] I thought we agreed to say the following:
> A DOTS signal channel session is associated with a single transport
> connection (TCP or UDP session) and an ephemeral security association (e.g. a
> TLS or DTLS session). Similarly,  a DOTS data channel session is associated
> with a single TCP connection and an ephemeral TLS security association.
> [3] Direct and recursive signaling is applicable to both DOTS signal and data
> channel sessions, replace "DOTS signal channel session" with "DOTS session".
> [4] In Section 3.1.2, replace "session" with "DOTS session"
> [5] Remove the following line:
> "These sessions may belong to the same or distinct DOTS channels (signal or
> data).
> 
> Cheers,
> -Tiru
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 5:40 PM
> > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>;
> > Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; dots@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Re-,
> >
> > OK. Thanks.
> >
> > FWIW, I also made on my side some changes that I'd like to see made to fix
> the
> > issues we discussed so far:
> >
> > Xml: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-
> ietf-
> > dots-architecture-09.xml
> > Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-
> > Reviews/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.txt%20draft-
> ietf-
> > dots-architecture-09.pdf
> >
> > Feel free to reuse the modified version.
> >
> > (Removing parts that were agreed and focusing on the last pending one)
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > DOTS data channel draft is not using the term "DOTS data
> > > > > > > channel session", we can fix the signal channel draft to use
> > > > > > > "DOTS data channel" instead of "DOTS data channel session".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Med] May be. BTW, this part of the text:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " Conversely, a
> > > > > >    DOTS session cannot exist without an established signal channel
> "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is conflicting with this one:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > To allow for DOTS
> > > > > >    service flexibility, neither the order of contact nor the time
> > > > > >    interval between channel creations is specified.  A DOTS client
> MAY
> > > > > >    establish signal channel first, and then data channel, or
> > > > > > vice
> > > versa."
> > > >
> > > > [Med] This one is still pending.
> > >
> > > The above line looks clear to me, what is the confusion ?
> > >
> >
> > [Med] The problem is not with the last line with this one:
> >
> > "DOTS session cannot exist without an established signal channel"
> >
> > Which means that dots signal channel session is a pre-requisite for DOTS
> data
> > channel. This is conflict with the other excerpt I cited.
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots