Re: [Dots] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-09: Section 4
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 14 October 2020 21:44 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 3F4953A08E3; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WxLAJLhuGLWK; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 89B743A08C1; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09ELi7BX031556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Oct 2020 17:44:12 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:44:06 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home.all@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20201014214406.GT50845@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <6907_1602682655_5F86FF1F_6907_180_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031560086@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6907_1602682655_5F86FF1F_6907_180_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031560086@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/wJTN20Ybr9Q5xkT_ypgPLz67IOU>
Subject: Re: [Dots] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-09: Section 4
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 21:44:16 -0000
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 01:37:34PM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > Re-, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > > > Section 4.2 > > > > Table 2 doesn't seem consistent with Table 1 -- Table 1 lists a > > couple parameters that admit multiple CBOR types, but Table 2 only > > lists a single CBOR Major Type for them. > > [Med] There is only one major type for the new attributes in both tables. The other type in table 1 is for the internal item. This is how we handled this in 8782. Ah, I see now. (I did look at 8782, but apparently only at the YANG/JSON mapping table, not the IANA considerations.) Sorry for the confusion. > > > > Section 4.3 > > > > We don't have any visible note about removing TBA9 (and should > > probably add some text about 4 only being the *requested* value as > > well, though I'm pretty sure we'd know if there were other Standards > > Actions in the works that would be potentially requesting a > > conflicting value!). > > [Med] Will add the note. Thanks! -Ben
- Re: [Dots] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signa… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dots-signa… Benjamin Kaduk