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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 10 May 2019 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 1B04C12015F; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 IYDGsIfY4CGL; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A810212015C; Thu, 9 May 2019 22:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 450f6z5fx3zCrnX; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:35:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.98]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 450f6z44MFzFpWM; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:35:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM7F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d9:d3cd:85bd:d331%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:35:07 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
CC: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org>, Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVBqtk8lepRrQofUSBfHTPZVdDZqZj0zNg
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 05:35:07 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA7B408@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <155676213548.2612.17892772935784304109.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1D15F9BD-A743-4EA4-86D8-35FA22FE5438@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <1D15F9BD-A743-4EA4-86D8-35FA22FE5438@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/ihkgYjlxb-zQ1fN5ecCoO7NrRHk>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 10 May 2019 05:35:12 -0000

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:alissa@cooperw.in]
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 mai 2019 23:09
> À : Alissa Cooper
> Cc : IESG; draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel@ietf.org; Liang Xia;
> dots@ietf.org; dots-chairs@ietf.org
> 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
> <noreply@ietf.org> 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?
> >
> >