Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05

Hi Med,

if you think that readers of this document are not required to read and understand 
signal-channel in order to implement this spec, then it's perfectly OK to make it Informative.

Regards,
Valery.

> Thank you, Valery.
> 
> As per the text you quoted, it should be put it its context:
> 
>    The design allows to terminate the base DOTS channels and DOTS Call
>    Home on the same or distinct peer DOTS agents.  If distinct peer DOTS
>    agents are deployed, the DHCP option can return, for example, a list
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    of IP addresses to a requesting DOTS agent.  This list includes the
>    IP address to be used for the base DOTS channels and the IP address
>    for the DOTS Call Home.  The DOTS client (or the Call Home DOTS
>    server) will then use the address selection specified in Section 4.3
>    of [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel] to identify the IP address of the
>    peer DOTS server (or Call Home Client).
> 
> It does only exemplify what an agent may do. The text you quoted does not use any normative language.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Valery Smyslov [mailto:valery@smyslov.net]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 7 novembre 2019 14:15
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; dots@ietf.org
> > Cc : dots-chairs@ietf.org
> > Objet : RE: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05
> >
> > Hi Med,
> >
> > this makes sense for signal-call-home, but why signal-channel?
> > You currently directly reference it:
> >
> >    The DOTS client (or the Call Home DOTS
> >    server) will then use the address selection specified in Section 4.3
> >    of [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel] to identify the IP address of the
> >    peer DOTS server (or Call Home Client).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Valery.
> >
> > > Hi Valery, all,
> > >
> > > Is there any objection if we move I-D.ietf-dots-signal-call-home and I-
> > D.ietf-dots-signal-channel to be
> > > informative references.
> > >
> > > We have listed I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel as normative because we have
> > this text in Section 8:
> > >
> > > "DOTS agents must
> > >    authenticate each other using (D)TLS before a DOTS session is
> > >    considered valid according to the [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]."
> > >
> > > But I'm afraid this is not appropriate given that the above is not a NEW
> > requirement but a reminder of the
> > > behavior in I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel. We may call out this better by
> > using this text:
> > >
> > > NEW:
> > >   As a reminder, DOTS agents must
> > >    authenticate each other using (D)TLS before a DOTS session is
> > >    considered valid according to the [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel].
> > >
> > > Any objections?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Med
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Valery Smyslov
> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 23 octobre 2019 09:37
> > > > À : dots@ietf.org
> > > > Cc : dots-chairs@ietf.org
> > > > Objet : [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-server-discovery-05
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this message starts a Work Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-dots-
> > > > server-discovery-05.
> > > > The version to be reviewed is here: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
> > > > dots-server-discovery-05.txt
> > > >
> > > > The WGLC will last for two weeks and will end on November the 7th.
> > > > Please send your comments to the list before this date.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Frank & Valery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Dots mailing list
> > > > Dots@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots