IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 16 March 2017 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 EE18B12E852 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 U15JSyY8z_gk for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (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 CBF6E129C68 for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v2G0nhxD024155; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:49:43 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu v2G0nhxD024155
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1489625383; bh=mFLjCMtqPUahtsDCnUARVhaefCX56nO65xYWKCaHJG4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nOW9SOvIRGkNbew5OFqMXvk/lrg53YtSFLKRdsCN4g1tFXfJs0WH5KIEvcPxZP4dT 69a6ZQo4qBvIUZ9kuICweUoM84jOMlEuDglldRqH7I4Ay4q6UqsXcDdltlzGfXmll4 X+7jQHu6dW/Xhr21KP6LC+c8zpyXYN2sHukXU3Rw=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id v2G0nhDl026653; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:49:43 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 20:49:42 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Zhenghui (Marvin)" <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
Thread-Index: AdKbyycv4ZM58GBcQp6mg2Ssqy0mugAR5PJwABh/KBAASgofEA==
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:49:41 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F1C5A1@marathon>
References: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED0001538042@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F19267@marathon> <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED00015389FC@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8F4995E43962F4996B280E9678CED00015389FC@SZXEMI507-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/i5wMDUntTTPAEbi-wJ12MmsHwRo>
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:49:54 -0000

Hi Marvin!

Thanks for this clarification.

Since the draft appears to want to add seven entries to the "IPFIX information elements" registry [1], have you considered directly asking for the additions?  The registration process for new IEs is expert review.

Roman

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml

-----Original Message-----
From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhenghui (Marvin)
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:35 AM
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

Hi Roman,

We used to believe that IPFIX can serve as a way for DOTS telemetry. 
However, an impression I've got in the past few weeks following the WG discussion, it is agreed that telemetry is an issue to be postponed.

Basically, we'd like to hear from the WG, about their opinions on this draft, so we can figure out what to do next.

For now, we do not see this draft as strongly mapping to the existing WG architecture or the protocol requirements.

Best Regards,
Zhenghui (Marvin)


-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Danyliw [mailto:rdd@cert.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 12:08 AM
To: Zhenghui (Marvin) <marvin.zhenghui@huawei.com>; dots@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking

Hello Marvin!

Thanks for sharing this update. 

> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 3:37 AM
> Subject: [Dots] draft-fu-dots-ipfix-extension revised into 
> draft-fu-dots-ipfix-tcp-tracking
>
[snip]

> However, we’ve realized what our draft intends to do is not what 
> currently DOTS WG is focusing on.
[snip]
> We submitted this draft to DOTS because IPFIX WG had been closed, and 
> DOTS was the best match we found.

To confirm, you do not see this draft as mapping to the existing WG architecture [1] or the protocol requirements [2] (as in part of a signal or data channel)?

Regards,
Roman

[1] draft-ietf-dots-architecture-01
[2] draft-ietf-dots-requirements-03
_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email