IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dots] 答复: Re Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00.txt

"Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.xialiang@huawei.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 5359712DC49 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 5TyvhPnVSEYa for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA4C12DB66 for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 18:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CKE17087; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:25:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:25:57 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.185]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:25:51 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Re Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRedIR7iGU41OjDki+dRFSxw5bGZ9QqBEAgAAXNYCAATSAAA==
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:25:51 +0000
Message-ID: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AEF943A@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <20160219143213.18440.22155.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56C729D0.2080707@nttv6.jp> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96E1534@marathon> <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AEF923E@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4F40EBBE-F985-4567-AFC6-7373EF46C684@arbor.net> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96E1B49@marathon> <D386F390-218C-4FB1-BEA0-E37C01DDE999@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <D386F390-218C-4FB1-BEA0-E37C01DDE999@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.56E0DB36.009A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.185, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 3521afdf7053393b44231205639744d7
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/oug9ysKUuAgfvG-8d3UKZdJmG2o>
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dots] 答复: Re Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 02:26:04 -0000

Hi Roland,
You understanding is correct. In principle, we hope they both share the same protocols. But it needs more consideration and discussion.
I also agree with your statement about transport protocol choice.

B.R.
Frank

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Roland Dobbins
发送时间: 2016年3月9日 23:58
收件人: dots@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Dots] Re Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00.txt

On 9 Mar 2016, at 21:35, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:

> I meant to ask whether draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00
> is proposing different protocols for each instance -- intra vs. inter.

Gotcha.

There are several concerns with this draft, as noted previously.  It wasn't apparent that proposing different protocols for inter- vs. 
intra-domain communications was one of those concerns, but perhaps I missed something?

Both stateful and stateless transport options should be available for both inter- and intra-domain communications, due to local variations in network access policies, etc.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email