Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 12 July 2019 00:40 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 1E3C2120155; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:40:42 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 rR0pLOax0zpi; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:40:40 -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 24CCE1200C7; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x6C0eWE4016834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Jul 2019 20:40:34 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:40:32 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.all@ietf.org, dots <dots@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190712004031.GH16418@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20190702223654.GF13810@kduck.mit.edu> <CADZyTk=odGB8n=B3RWU1i_xumH3TRo+Rn5v6NsFVRZzUKdpaRA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTk=odGB8n=B3RWU1i_xumH3TRo+Rn5v6NsFVRZzUKdpaRA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/gEnr8mgGepL3ZWqbGyt9HUW1pvE>
Subject: Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:40:42 -0000

On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 04:13:38PM -0400, Daniel Migault wrote:
> 
> c) it was unclear to me how to address the following comment.
> 
> 
> >    The communication between a network administrator and the
> >    orchestrator is also performed using DOTS.  The network administrator
> >    via its web interfaces implements a DOTS client, while the
> >    Orchestrator implements a DOTS server.
> >
> > nit: as written, this is saying that the network administrator has a
> > web interface.  I think "its" is supposed to refer to something else.
> >
> > <mglt>
> What we are trying to say is that the network administrator sees its web
> interface, and instruct the DOTS client from that interface. I have not
> made any change to address that concern, as I do not clearly see what is
> confusing.
> </mglt>

I don't think anyone is actually confused about the meaning; this was just
a pedantic comment about the grammar.  "its web interface"  has to belong
to something/someone, and with the current wording we are forced to parse
the sentence as "the network administrator's web interface", which is
surprising since a network administrator is a human and a web interface is
usually provided by a webserver.  Perhaps we want to say "The network
administrator uses a web interface that implements a DOTS client"?

-Ben