Re: [Dots] Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 9:09 PM
> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23
> 
> 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.
> 
> Hello Tiru!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dots [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Konda,
> > Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 2:27 AM
> > To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Dots] Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:02 PM
> > > To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > <[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Hi Tiru!
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> > > > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:30 AM
> > > > To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: RE: Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Dots <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 3:34 AM
> > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: [Dots] Nits on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23
> > > > >
> > > > > (5) Registration guidance for DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mapping
> > > > > Registry is precise.  However, I'm left seeking guidance on how
> > > > > to process messages with fields not specified in this draft
> > > > > (i.e., fields registered after this draft is published).  The
> > > > > closest I can find is language in Section 6 that states "[t]he
> > > > > recipient of the payload MAY reject the  information if it is not suitably
> mapped."
> > > > > I would also benefited from a preamble describing the purpose of
> > > > > the registry -- is it a
> > > > way to extend the protocol with new optional fields?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we will have to request IANA to create "DOTS Signal Channel Claims"
> > > > registry (just like it's done in
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8392
> > > > and new drafts like
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-13#section-
> > > > 8.12  are using the registry defined in RFC8392 to add new claims).
> > > > "Parameter Name" in the table 6 needs to be changed to "Claim Name".
> > > >
> > > > In addition, to accommodate future drafts to add new fields, the
> > > > fields should be classified into " comprehension-optional" and
> > > > "comprehension- required" for DOTS agents to ignore or reject
> > > > unknown fields. The key value range can be further split to
> > > > accommodate vendor-specific, comprehension- optional and
> > > > comprehension-required attributes. The fields defined in this spec
> > > > will be of type comprehension-
> > > required.
> > >
> > > We're in complete agreement on the purpose of the registry.  It's
> > > the explanation of the registry I'm proposing is missing.
> > >
> > > IMO, the draft would benefit from explicitly stating (1) the
> > > processing implications of this registry (just as you stated above
> > > so that the DOTS agents knows what to reject); and (2) noting that
> > > the registry is a general means for extensibility. We have had
> > > several ideas or individual drafts come to the WG requesting the
> > > addition of new, optional fields to the protocol (e.g., draft-yang-
> > > dos-type-for-dots-00 at IETF 102; draft-doron-dots-telemetry-00 at IETF 97).
> > > The WG deferred them but we never explicitly resolved the issue of
> > > extensibility. The registry addresses the issue of extensibility.
> > > I'm proposed as few words that state that.
> >
> > Sure, will update draft.
> 
> Thanks for the new text in -24.  IMO this new partitioned registry provides the
> needed extensibility.
> 
> The language in -24 addresses my feedback.

Thanks, Roman. The only pending comment to resolve is the use of specific media type.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> 
> Roman