Re: [Dots] Questions about draft-doron-dots-telemetry-00

[Ehud Doron <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman

Thanks a lot for your questions.

Before getting in to each of your question, I would like to explain the goal and objectives of our work.

We want to define and standardize all the pieces of information needed by DOTS Server mitigation environment for optimal mitigation. This DOTS Telemetry need to be optionally signaled as part of "DOTS Client asks Server for help" various signaling process.

We want to bring the DOTS Telemetry various needs and meanings to be discussed and agreed in the DOTS WG.

After we will all get to the agreement on the various attributes needed, we believe the other DOTS "core" docs need to somehow adopt them and update accordingly.

Essentially we would like to build a "Telemetry" extension standard to the basic DOTS protocol, and this document would define that. Keeping the telemetry specification in a separate draft is good approach for future extensibility.

We expect that the other DOTS draft will benefit this draft by adopting the approaches it suggests to enrich the DOTS signaling. For this goal, we as the DOTS WG first need to better understand (and agree in the group) what we see as baseline mandatory capabilities and what we see as extensions. We are just at the early stages of this work, the current draft defines an initial set of attributes and obviously more discussions in the WG are needed to define the set of attribute that are the "DOTS Telemetry", and to what extend the other DOTS draft should benefit the DOTS Telemetry.

To your questions:

(1) Is there an undocumented telemetry use case that needs to be added to the use case WG document?  Section 4.0 suggests that.
     Yes. We want to DOTS use cases, the existing and maybe new others, to be enriched with Telemetry related items. It is important to emphasize "when and where" DOTS Telemetry can , or should, be signaled such that the mitigation gained for the use case is far better. We want also the other docs (requirements, architecture, protocols, data model and so on) to take the similar approaches.

(2) Is there another protocol draft coming that will incorporate the attributes enumerated in Section 3?  Or are the existing protocol drafts supposed to adopted these?
      As said, the existing protocol drafts supposed to adopt DOT Telemetry approaches by incorporating the attributes enumerated in this draft.

(3) What is the relationship you see between this draft and draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01 (especially given all the authors on the latter are in the former as well)?
      The DOTS Telemetry draft purpose is to define the Telemetry attributes needed. The actual data model objects needed to signal these attributes are expected to be define in the info-data model doc. The info-data model draft will define an extension mechanism that supports adding telemetry. To what extent it will also define telemetry is a more open question for the group.


Best wishes,
Ehud Doron |  Senior Architect, Radware CTO office | M: [phone] | T: [phone]


From: Roman D. Danyliw [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 6:30 AM
To: Ehud Doron <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Xialiang (Frank) <[e-mail]>; kaname nishizuka <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Questions about draft-doron-dots-telemetry-00

Hello Ehud, Tiru, Flemming, Frank and Kaname!

Thanks for producing and submitting this draft!

Without getting into the details, what did you have in mind with this draft.  Specifically:

(1) Is there an undocumented telemetry use case that needs to be added to the use case WG document?  Section 4.0 suggests that.

(2) Is there another protocol draft coming that will incorporate the attributes enumerated in Section 3?  Or are the existing protocol drafts supposed to adopted these?

(3) What is the relationship you see between this draft and draft-andreasen-dots-info-data-model-01 (especially given all the authors on the latter are in the former as well)?

Thanks,
Roman