Re: [Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-14: (with COMMENT)

Hi Éric, 

Please see one comment inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Éric Vyncke via
> Datatracker
> Envoyé : jeudi 20 octobre 2022 09:11
> À : The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc : draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases@ietf.org; dots-
> chairs@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org; valery@smyslov.net;
> valery@smyslov.net
> Objet : [Dots] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-
> telemetry-use-cases-14: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-
> cases/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> COMMENT:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07
> CC @evyncke
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies
> would be
> appreciated even if only for my own education).
> 
> Special thanks to Valery Smyslov for the shepherd's detailed
> write-up including
> the WG consensus *but* the justification of the intended status is
> missing.
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> ## COMMENTS
> 
> ### Timing of the WG docs
> 
> Like Alvaro wrote, it would have been nicer for the reviewer to
> have this
> document published before RFC 9244 ;-)
> 
> ### Section 3.1.1 report
> 
> `recently reported large DDoS attacks exceeded several Tbps`
> please provide an
> informative reference to this report.

[Med] A pointer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/materials/slides-108-saag-dots-overview-00 (slide 3) can be added. The prez includes embedded URLs.  

> 
> ### Section 3.1.1 top-talkers
> 
> I am a little puzzled how an attack coming out of *two* top-
> talkers (and thanks
> for using IPv6 examples :-) ) is a *distributed* DoS attack.
> Suggest to change
> the prefix to something broader (e.g., two /48) rather than a host
> /128 prefix.
> 
> ### Section 3.1.1 figure 1 e.g.
> 
> Is the use of "E.g.," in figures common ? or useful ? in figure 1
> ?
> 
> As a side note, I am hard time to understand the figure 1: they
> are overloaded
> and little explanations on the graphics are given.
> 
> ### Section 3.1.5
> 
> The intro text is about DNS torture attack, but the DOTS example
> is about DNS
> amplification attack, which appears as different attacks to me.
> 
> ### Section 3.3.1
> 
> To be honest, the value of this section about ML escapes me ;-)
> (notably why
> DOTS is helping here) but the example DOTS message would benefit
> of using
> 2001:db8::2/127 rather than the 2 /128 ;)
> 
> ### Section 6
> 
> Like Murray, I also wonder why some reviews are labelled as IESG
> review ;-)
> 
> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You
> can use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review
> into
> individual GitHub issues.
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.