Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 30 November 2018 12:10 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 8B37A130DE2 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 04:10:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 SscAnuO4lnAJ for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 04:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEA01294D7 for <dots@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 04:10:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by opfedar23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 435tWF0jxkzBsJS; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:10:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.69]) by opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 435tWF00LgzCql0; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:10:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::bc1c:ad2f:eda3:8c3d%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:10:16 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
Thread-Index: AdSGnlgla3cLRB5MRLWQWFaJSQftBABEEW3wAAZceYAAB9nNYAAEkILwAB+EMpAACKXk4AACgplw
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:10:15 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E050207@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0184C49169@marathon> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04F649@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BN6PR16MB1425AD85A67FFE5A0EA5A769EAD20@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04F981@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BN6PR16MB1425D2A6BED037A18098CF54EAD20@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04FF7F@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BN6PR16MB1425379772574B34E678406DEAD30@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR16MB1425379772574B34E678406DEAD30@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/ltwszR4anl_akzdIGNZ6vyc1-DM>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
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, 30 Nov 2018 12:10:22 -0000

Re-,

OK. Thanks. 

FWIW, I also made on my side some changes that I'd like to see made to fix the issues we discussed so far:

Xml: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.xml 
Diff: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.txt%20draft-ietf-dots-architecture-09.pdf 

Feel free to reuse the modified version. 

(Removing parts that were agreed and focusing on the last pending one)

> > > >
> > > > > DOTS data channel draft is not using the term "DOTS data channel
> > > > > session", we can fix the signal channel draft to use "DOTS data
> > > > > channel" instead of "DOTS data channel session".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Med] May be. BTW, this part of the text:
> > > >
> > > > " Conversely, a
> > > >    DOTS session cannot exist without an established signal channel "
> > > >
> > > > is conflicting with this one:
> > > >
> > > > "
> > > > To allow for DOTS
> > > >    service flexibility, neither the order of contact nor the time
> > > >    interval between channel creations is specified.  A DOTS client MAY
> > > >    establish signal channel first, and then data channel, or vice
> versa."
> >
> > [Med] This one is still pending.
> 
> The above line looks clear to me, what is the confusion ?
> 

[Med] The problem is not with the last line with this one:

"DOTS session cannot exist without an established signal channel"

Which means that dots signal channel session is a pre-requisite for DOTS data channel. This is conflict with the other excerpt I cited.