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.
But lifetime is mandatory as other parts of the draft 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.
There is no reason to restrict the server sending attack-status to the clients.
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 <valery@smyslov.net> 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
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots