[Dots] DOTS telemetry Issues picked up in Interop Testing

Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Mon, 20 April 2020 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.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 F2C463A0BE9 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 lQ15KMT4jARM for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.jpshallow.com (mail.jpshallow.com [217.40.240.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CA0D3A0BF4 for <dots@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 05:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.jpshallow.com ([192.168.0.3] helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1jQVCR-0002HO-C7 for ietf-supjps-dots@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:06:55 +0100
From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: dots@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:06:49 +0100
Message-ID: <102501d6170c$2be45900$83ad0b00$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1026_01D61714.8DA95D40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdYXDCmQwrX/OmZLRDqS1+FUPP8vAQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/rpiaorGuySxzxilWRUjxLTKIRnA>
Subject: [Dots] DOTS telemetry Issues picked up in Interop Testing
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: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 12:07:11 -0000

Hi All,

 

1)

   DOTS agents MUST NOT send pre-or-ongoing-mitigation telemetry

   messages to the same peer more frequently than once every 'telemetry-

   notify-interval' (Section 6.1).

 

If I do a PUT /tm-setup, followed immediately by a GET /tm-setup, should the
GET fail based on the telemetry-notify-interval, or should
telemetry-notify-interval apply individually to PUT. GET and DELETE?

[I may want to do a DELETE (no tsid) followed by a GET to get suitable
max/min information and telemetry-notify-interval can easily be more than 1
second. ]

 

2)

Use of multiple Uri-Query:

 

Uri-Query: target_prefix=[1.2.3.4]

Uri-Query: target_prefix=[2.3.4.5]

I think this should be OR

 

Uri-Query: target_prefix=[1.2.3.4]

Uri-Query: target_port=[80]

I think this should be an AND.

 

Perhaps we should have operator queries

Uri-Query: target_prefix=[1.2.3.4]

Uri-Query: op=OR

Uri-Query: target_prefix=[2.3.4.5]

 

Uri-Query: target_prefix=[1.2.3.4]

Uri-Query: op=AND

Uri-Query: target_port=[80]

 

Thoughts?

 

3)

What happens if a Query cannot be supported.

 

E.g. Uri-Query: target_port=[80] and statistics on the server by a port
basis  is not supported.  Do we want to either error out with a 4.0X
responses, or should we include a (new additional) YANG body response
indicating which Uri-Query is not supported?

 

 

Regards

 

Jon