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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

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?
> 
>