Re: [Dots] WGLC for draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-01

[[e-mail]]

Hi Yasuaki, 

Thank you for the comments. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Yasuaki Morita [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mardi 6 octobre 2020 14:02
> À : Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Dots] WGLC for draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-01
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Let me point out two things about the draft.
> 
> First, lifetime is defined to be an optional leaf on the Yang tree
> diagram.

[Med] I confirm.

> But lifetime is mandatory as other parts of the draft

[Med] It is mandatory in a request and an accepted mitigation response, but not in a conflict response for instance.

The structure applies of the mitigation independently whether this a request, response, conflict, efficacy update, etc.  

 and I believe
> that `lifetime?` in the tree should be replaced by `lifetime`.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the tree-diagram:
> 
> 
>       structure dots-signal:
>         +-- (message-type)?
>            +--:(mitigation-scope)
>            |  +-- scope* []
>            ...(snip)...
>            |     +-- lifetime?                     union
> 
> 
> >From the description of lifetime:
> 
>    lifetime:  Lifetime of the mitigation request in seconds.
>       ...(snip)...
>       The DOTS server MUST always indicate the actual lifetime in
> the
>       response and the remaining lifetime in status messages sent to
> the
>       DOTS client.
>       This is a mandatory attribute.
> 
> 
> Second, I guess that the attribute `:(client-to-server-only)` for
> attack-status in the tree diagram is redundant or confusing.
> I believe that the clients should be able to obtain its current
> attack-status from the server, but `:(client-to-server-only)` seems
> like forbidding it.

[Med] "attack-status" is an attribute that is sent by a client to share its view on the attack with the server. The server manipulates "status" to report the status as seen at the server side. 

The server does not include the "attack-status" (received from the client) in a GET.

> There is no reason to restrict the server sending attack-status to
> the clients.

[Med] What would be the use case if that constraint was relaxed?


> So I suggest that we simply write
> 
>            |        +-- attack-status?
>            |                iana-dots-signal:attack-status
> 
> instead of
> 
>            |        +--:(client-to-server-only)
>            |           +-- attack-status?
>            |                   iana-dots-signal:attack-status
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Yasuaki
> 
> 
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 11:43, Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > this message starts a two-week working group last call for
> > draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-01, which will end on Wednesday,
> October
> > 21. Please, review the draft carefully and send your comments to
> the mailing list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frank & Valery.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dots mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.