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

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

Hi Med,

I don't fully agree with some of the updates.  I propose the following changes:

[1] Replace " A DOTS session can be a DOTS data channel session or a DOTS signal channel session" with "A DOTS session can be a DOTS data channel session or a DOTS signal channel session or both."
[2] I thought we agreed to say the following:
A DOTS signal channel session is associated with a single transport connection (TCP or UDP session) and an ephemeral security association (e.g. a TLS or DTLS session). Similarly,  a DOTS data channel session is associated with a single TCP connection and an ephemeral TLS security association.
[3] Direct and recursive signaling is applicable to both DOTS signal and data channel sessions, replace "DOTS signal channel session" with "DOTS session".
[4] In Section 3.1.2, replace "session" with "DOTS session"
[5] Remove the following line:
"These sessions may belong to the same or distinct DOTS channels (signal or data). 

Cheers,
-Tiru

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 5:40 PM
> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <[e-mail]>;
> Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.