Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon

Hi Tiru, 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy [mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com]
> Envoyé : lundi 1 avril 2019 15:31
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; Jon Shallow; kaname nishizuka; dots@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
> 
> Update looks good, couple of points to consider:
> 
> 1> when the mitigation request is successfully applied, the response must
> include the acl-* attributes conveyed in the request (as per RFC7252
> 5.9.1.1).

[Med] I hesitated to add this one. What is the purpose of returning the acl-* in the response given that 2.01/2.04 are explicit that the type was successfully updated. Receiving a response such as the one in Figure 10 of the signal channel is straightforward. 

> 2> It looks useful to return the activated ACL statistics, for example If the
> client activates a rate-limit ACL, the ACL could be applied at the PE router
> (because the DMS is not capable of handling the attack volume). The rate-
> limit ACL will rate-limit both legitimate and attack traffic, and the DMS
> will scrub the rate-limited traffic and drop the attack traffic. The client
> may want to know the statistics of the traffic dropped because of the rate-
> limit ACL.

[Med] This one needs more discussion, IMO. I suggest to leave this one open for future revisions. 

> 
> -Tiru
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of
> > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> > Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 4:43 PM
> > To: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>; kaname nishizuka
> > <kaname@nttv6.jp>; dots@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Jon, Kaname, all,
> >
> > FWIW, a proposal to integrate the interop comments is available at:
> > https://github.com/boucadair/filter-control/blob/master/wdiff%20draft-
> > nishizuka-dots-signal-control-filtering-05.txt%20draft-nishizuka-dots-
> signal-
> > control-filtering-06.pdf
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > > De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de kaname
> > > > > > nishizuka Envoyé : jeudi 28 mars 2019 11:38 À : dots@ietf.org
> > > > > > Objet : [Dots] clarification questions from the hackathon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of these topics in the ML.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #1: Questions about signal-control-filtering
> > > > > >   1. Should a mitigation request create a mitigation before
> > > > > > doing a PUT
> > > +
> > > > > > acl-list [{acl-name, activation-type}] against the active
> > > > > > mitigation,
> > > or
> > > > is a
> > > > > > ‘PUT + acl-list [{acl-name, activation-type}]’ allowed to create
> > > > > > a new mitigation?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] Both are currently allowed in the draft. I don't still a
> > > > > valid
> > > reason
> > > > to
> > > > > restrict this.
> > > >
> > > > [Jon] As per draft
> > > >    A DOTS client MUST NOT use the filtering control over DOTS signal
> > > >    channel if no attack (mitigation) is active;
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Med] What is meant actually is:
> > >
> > >    A DOTS client MUST NOT use the filtering control over DOTS signal
> > >    channel in 'idle' time;
> > >
> > > Will update the text.
> > >
> > > > [Jon] then needs to be reworded as there is no active mitigation
> > > > until the PUT is done...
> > > > I believe that both cases should be supported.
> > > > >
> > > > > >   2. Should the response to a GET (or Observed GET) include the
> > > > > > acl-
> > > list
> > > > > > [{acl-name, activation-type}] if the PUT included it?
> > > > >
> > > > > [Med] The current spec says "no". That's said, what would be the
> > > > > value in returning it? Then, why not allowing to return the
> > > > > references to all ACLs
> > > > that
> > > > > are enabled during the mitigation time?
> > > > >
> > > > [Jon] When observing the mitigation request, if the activation-type
> > > > is changed externally, the client will then know about the change.
> > > > Assuming
> > > the
> > > > response got back to the client, this is effectively an ACK to the
> > > > fact
> > > that
> > > > the ACL change got through.
> > >
> > > [Med] The observe case makes sense, indeed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Interesting concept about knowing about all the relevant ACLs as
> > > > returned over the signal channel.  More work for the server to do in
> > > > determining
> > > which
> > > > ACLs are valid for, say, a specific IP address that is being mitigated.
> > > Not
> > > > entirely convinced of the benefit of this as this generally is
> > > > available
> > > over
> > > > the data channel.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Med] I'm not convinced, either.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > Dots@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots