IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] Unique use cases

"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 31 March 2016 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 5A4E912D156 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 MOoDsxRZQeh6 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (plainfield.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2D5912D0C8 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id u2VJPSFn004445; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:25:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1459452328; bh=qBNYI7+npf1iK5QZA0wgLv/Z4KSmSjA2Hqy6L99Q5Xo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender: Reply-To:Cc; b=VRp7GA6nQftZ0x0eFfAS+Q85oG9xc/3xapf1dxdpzCTIcaj5nBbQpDhaK0puzUcT6 4wbRvvyBJS30W9OTS/ZWl3NvLBIiP1gC6iqKgff8uV+ko3DTo4EY6A+ZBEBkdm2KIh uRm+Zv84ciOwFnwo55dZfGQLalv6i6PLKcVocPlU=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id u2VJOp1Z012061; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:24:51 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:25:25 -0400
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Unique use cases
Thread-Index: AdGKCJbai02bV9oeSSmarut46dOgpAAlUheAADiewgA=
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 19:25:24 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96F992C@marathon>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96F75B8@marathon> <794C446F-DDB2-4583-A9A9-7ACE67C0192A@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <794C446F-DDB2-4583-A9A9-7ACE67C0192A@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/pszHA4mbEAtSUQhPcGJbTKltIMw>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Unique use cases
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, 31 Mar 2016 19:25:33 -0000

Hi Roland!

(chair hat off)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roland Dobbins
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:05 AM
> To: dots@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dots] Unique use cases
> 
> On 30 Mar 2016, at 5:30, Roman D. Danyliw wrote:
[snip]

> > (1) What's the difference between [WG-UC]'s [WG-UC]-2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
> > beyond the kind of device acting as the DOTS client?  The write-ups
> > are nearly identical.
> 
> That's the point - to illustrate that different types of devices/applications can
> participate in DOTS, and that all the other differences are largely irrelevant to
> the actual requirements of DOTS, and that DOTS has universal applicability.

I agree on the intent.  IMHO, by repeating the text so many times, this universal applicability and common behavior regardless of device got lost.

[snip]
> > (2) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [UD-UC]-1 (Section 4.1.1)
> > and 2 (Section 4.1.2); and [WG-UC]-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6?
> 
> There is no Section 4.1.1 nor Section 4.1.2 in draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01,
> IIRC?

The cited section numbers were for draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 [aka, ID-UC].  I didn't cite the section numbers for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01 [aka, WG-UC].

> > (3) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [ID-UC]-3 (Section 4.2.1)
> > and [ID-UC]-4 (Section 4.2.2); and [IDC-UC]-1 (Section 3.1)?
> 
> Are you asking about the delta between the specific use cases in the two
> draft versions?

Ignoring, draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01, I was trying to understand the difference between use cases #3 and 4 in Section 4.2.1/4.2.2 in draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 [aka, ID-UC]; relative to use case #1 in Section 3.1 of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00 [aka, IDC-UC].  Are the former two use cases the same as the latter?

> > (4) [ID-UC]-5 and [IDC-UC]-2 appear to be acknowledged as the same use
> > case in Section 4.2.3 of [ID-UC].  Is that correct?
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm very confused by all the new acronyms and reliance on
> numbers which don't actually appear in the documents - there is no Section
> 4.2.3 in draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01.  Can you provide more context?
> Apologies for my confusion!

Sorry for the confusion.  Let me expand my notation for clarity ...

Use case #5 in Section 4.2.3 of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 [aka, ID-UC] appears to state that it is identical to use case #2 in Section 3.2 of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00 [aka, IDC-UC].  Is that correct?

Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email