Re: [Dots] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-09: Section 4

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed, 14 October 2020 13:38 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 C8F2B3A0D87; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
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 QugRsvukb9DT; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.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 1E1DF3A0DD5; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4CBD4H3d7mz20Fd; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1602682655; bh=+d7Z5B3Xe4pn91ISn8aHlYISelM73IKD6qAVFD/JK4g=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=GR73eLPeGBZVletSOoZ8MGsh9/6Z31oHEbE2F+aARwU9dxfLQXY1xKrfVak6D3LZR kHfmzKFRD6HaU5XBWx3s0stJUQwmJyYZ0qCy+HsULgJXV37aZIC9L1abuDs1nFmNSS cXe2IoT7ga8v85aw+gL0pibNxOmSpU69fzpoOJEzdNpo7wt1KyRS+V2AuAhtgI0rAr QTmMB42rVeXyyKTg9MR5oabvcQIyhjwT2DZfIIhrrw4dqPrLT+zwH1TNZRhCTRfAUB CGrs9QbKvZVGbtWBa8JTv0tx6aY+ewlI6B8cQ11XMmbT71E/rPPfD6AotjbgjtWlpG fyi/JueSE0uXw==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.73]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4CBD4H2b9mzyQV; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home.all@ietf.org>
CC: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-09: Section 4
Thread-Index: AdaiLynBwFg+y+Y2RniAFXLwailOPw==
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:37:34 +0000
Message-ID: <6907_1602682655_5F86FF1F_6907_180_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031560086@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/il1bW9Nlu-aCtxDOo20ta6rO35Q>
Subject: Re: [Dots] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-09: Section 4
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:38:07 -0000

Re-, 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> 
> Section 4.2
> 
> Table 2 doesn't seem consistent with Table 1 -- Table 1 lists a
> couple parameters that admit multiple CBOR types, but Table 2 only
> lists a single CBOR Major Type for them.

[Med] There is only one major type for the new attributes in both tables. The other type in table 1 is for the internal item. This is how we handled this in 8782.   

> 
> Section 4.3
> 
> We don't have any visible note about removing TBA9 (and should
> probably add some text about 4 only being the *requested* value as
> well, though I'm pretty sure we'd know if there were other Standards
> Actions in the works that would be potentially requesting a
> conflicting value!).

[Med] Will add the note. 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.