Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 24 avril 2019 08:13
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Valery Smyslov; [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : RE: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dots <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> > [e-mail]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 11:26 AM
> > To: Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Dots] Adoption call for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
> >
> > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links
> or
> > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> > safe.
> >
> > Re-,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Valery Smyslov
> > > Envoyé : mercredi 24 avril 2019 07:02 À : [e-mail] Cc :
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Dots] Adoption call
> > > for draft-reddy-dots-home-network-04
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we received a lot of replies supporting adoption of the document.
> > > So, the document is adopted. Authors, please re-submit it as WG draft.
> > >
> > > A couple of comments.
> > > 1. The draft uses few times a keyword "MAY NOT". This combination is not
> > >      among the list of RFC requirement keywords (it is not listed neither
> > >      in RFC2119, nor in RFC8174). If the intent was to use RFC
> requirement
> > >      language, then I'd suggest replacing it with one of MUST NOT,
> > > SHALL NOT,
> > >      SHOULD NOT. Otherwise please make it lowcase.
> > >
> >
> > [Med] Good catch. Fixed.
> >
> > > 2. When describing transport, the draft allows both TLS and DTLS. What
> > >      makes me confusing is that the draft describes it several times
> > > as "TCP/TLS or DTLS".
> > >      Why TCP is ever mentioned here? We all know that TLS usually runs
> over
> > >      TCP (however we now have QUICK) and DTLS runs over UDP.
> > >      The way it is presented in the draft makes me think that probably
> > >      plain TCP is also allowed as a transport, but is seems to contradict
> > >      everything I read about DOTS. Am I missing something here?
> > >
> >
> > [Med] Plain TCP is not allowed. The intent was to be explicit that there is
> a
> > reversal in both TCP and TLS layers, but as you rightfully raised this may
> be
> > confusing since, for the DOTS case, it is trivial that the reversal of TLS
> roles
> > implies the reversal of TCP ones.
> 
> RESTCONF call home only reverses the TCP role but not the TLS role. In DOTS
> case, the server has to initiate DTLS handshake for UDP. To keep the roles
> same for TCP,  TLS handshake is also initiated by the server.

[Med] You missed "for the DOTS case" in my previous reply :-)

We do have the following in the draft:

                   DOTS                                DOTS
                  Server                              Client
                    |                                    |
                    |         1. (D)TLS connection       |
                    |----------------------------------->|
                    |         2. Mitigation request      |
                    |<-----------------------------------|
                    |                                    |

That can be trivially expanded as follows for the TLS case:

                   DOTS                                DOTS
                  Server                              Client
                    |                                    |
                    |         1.1. TCP                   |
                    |----------------------------------->|
                    |         1.2. TLS                   |
                    |----------------------------------->|
                    |         2. Mitigation request      |
                    |<-----------------------------------|
                    |                                    |


As mentioned earlier, the use of TCP/TLS is OK but it may be confusing as initially raised by Valery.