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

Daniel Migault <> Fri, 12 July 2019 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2D12017D; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.247, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zFo-pfcBF1XE; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689DB120125; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s4so3906550uad.7; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zzwd1KRwOVhU+NKrDnnc9njrDQGIe9rmDa/KqO2zI2g=; b=dP8jLGrK0tj8eTjLw/k6vorfWW/HFv0GA5J3kKnFh+wFxsdQ598bhK6/bVmANOplgc UXFZYnFtC9lhpPE59FY+PLTuFvdVAb5NcJg0tWeZn4QYojvEj1kcGLTtjSih1gkQ2UVT lt7Yjn6GiS2+4KwgjxWzZVA5wobf7RdrDyWn4dZlas0yBhVtlPJ0T6VxbzH+N+csjGxt ympL9f5NMbI1ruQARD/aWexXtz3YncdVULqTt2DXFPdPJsfuyyzev0d3MGoO9MhhdJV0 rfnYKZqHHCQRC1093rsiVeMs5nGdsfbjk/UFbSUGXVY+djkpwrxcmOwpPCQbe4a0ydEO i9ZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXjGVOg66aUtTRAFQT9HS1sKP+FN6u0aKyrUor8n3gRYrKZqhUf guK5BNE7ksSz44E6pgYMzOpRX8ozIdoLS7DLDrU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxFVX5zriC6fTTYatvtZNtcwyg/ABn5NVIpC2XKxXB3lCvbDQROxiHsJKsgzE/E35CZ9PanmCSEYXfMjbQ8Rnw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2e0e:: with SMTP id t14mr8284366uaj.119.1562933536779; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Daniel Migault <>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:12:05 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
Cc:, dots <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004474a3058d7ad2c5"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-17
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 12:12:22 -0000

Thanks for the follow up Ben. So I think your concern has been addressed by
other changes in the document.
Though I am not saying I do not introduced other nits of the same kind, I
checked throughout the document
and I believe any time web interface is mentioned it is currenlty clear it
does not belong to the network admin.

Maybe some english native co-authors could do a last proof-reading of the
document to remove these sort of nits.
the cuurent version is at:

The current text is:

The analysis from the
orchestrator is reported to the network administrator via a web
interface. If the network administrator decides to start the
mitigation, the network administrator triggers the DDoS mitigation
request using the web interface of a DOTS client communicating to the
orchestrator DOTS server. This request is expected to be associated with
a context that provides sufficient information to the orchestrator DOTS
server to infer the DDoS Mitigation to elaborate and coordinate.


On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Benjamin Kaduk <> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list