[Dots] Signal Channel -23 MTU and Fragmentation

"Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Fri, 24 August 2018 08:38 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 38137130DEE for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 01:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Ts53qRpSBkR4 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 01:38:45 -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 8D444130DED for <dots@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 01:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1ft7cA-0006ca-Lv for ietf-supjps-dots@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:38:42 +0100
From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: dots@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:38:42 +0100
Message-ID: <0e3701d43b85$dcc7ae70$96570b50$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0E38_01D43B8E.3E8C8BA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdQ7hdy1h3roDZ+6SqGF5tZ0IsBxeg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/uxzT5W-AtzmsGtt-dV45HSUotfo>
Subject: [Dots] Signal Channel -23 MTU and Fragmentation
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 08:38:47 -0000

Hi There,

 

7.3.  MTU and Fragmentation

 

Should we not also allow the use of RFC7959 - Block-Wise Transfers in the
Constrained Application Protocol?

 

The particular use case I am thinking of is "GET
/.well-known/dots/v1/mitigate/cuid=xxx" to retrieve all DOTS mitigation
requests (Figure 10) when the response will not fit into a single packet due
to the number of currently defined mitigations that also may have multiple
target-* definitions.

 

It also removes the restriction on the PUT size, but I would still recommend
that the PUT should only fit into a single packet due to the potential of
high network losses.

 

Even if the PUT fits into a single packet, a  GET response with additional
status fields could exceed the packet size.

 

Regards

 

Jon