Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa, 

The main reason is that the examples in the draft are using the JSON encoding of YANG modelled data.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 23:09
> À : Alissa Cooper
> Cc : IESG; [e-mail]; Liang Xia;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks, the changes look good. However I still don’t understand why RFC
> 7951 is listed as a normative reference.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> > On May 1, 2019, at 9:55 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: Discuss
> >
> > 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/iesg/statement/discuss-
> criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > = Section 3 =
> >
> > "By default, a DOTS signal channel MUST run over port number TBD as
> >   defined in Section 9.1, for both UDP and TCP, unless the DOTS server
> >   has a mutual agreement with its DOTS clients to use a different port
> >   number.  DOTS clients MAY alternatively support means to dynamically
> >   discover the ports used by their DOTS servers (e.g.,
> >   [I-D.boucadair-dots-server-discovery])."
> >
> > MUST implies an absolute requirement, so "MUST ... unless" is a
> problematic
> > construction. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense together with "MAY
> > alternatively," which indicates that port number discovery is an
> alternative to
> > the fixed to-be-assigned port.
> >
> > I didn't have time to get very far into draft-boucadair-dots-server-
> discovery,
> > but it appears that it does not mandate support for any single discovery
> > mechanism for clients and servers to support. If so, that
> "alternatively" seems
> > like more of a problem, since it allows for there to be no interoperable
> > mechanism for clients to discover server ports. I think maybe what was
> intended
> > here was:
> >
> > s/MUST/SHOULD/
> > s/MAY alternatively/MAY additionally/
> >
> > = Section 4.4.1 =
> >
> > (1)
> > "In deployments where server-domain DOTS gateways are enabled,
> >   identity information about the origin source client domain SHOULD be
> >   propagated to the DOTS server.  That information is meant to assist
> >   the DOTS server to enforce some policies such as grouping DOTS
> >   clients that belong to the same DOTS domain, limiting the number of
> >   DOTS requests, and identifying the mitigation scope.  These policies
> >   can be enforced per-client, per-client domain, or both.  Also, the
> >   identity information may be used for auditing and debugging purposes."
> >
> > Does "identity information" just refer to cdid, or something else?
> >
> > (2) The constructions "MUST ... (absent explicit policy/configuration
> > otherwise)" are problematic. I'm assuming these are meant to be SHOULDs.
> >
> > = Section 13.1 =
> >
> > I don't understand why RFC 7951 is a normative reference but
> > draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor is an informative reference.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > = Section 4.4.1 =
> >
> > "The 'cuid' is intended to be stable when communicating with a
> >      given DOTS server, i.e., the 'cuid' used by a DOTS client SHOULD
> >      NOT change over time. "
> >
> > Why is this the recommended behavior?
> >
> >