Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23.txt

Hi Kaname,

Please see inline.

From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of kaname nishizuka
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 1:58 PM
To: dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23.txt

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

________________________________
Hi,

I did a review on -23 of the signal channel draft:

1. [correction] GET request can be without 'sid' Uri-Path parameter.

<

   If a non-zero value of Max-Age Option is received by a DOTS client,

   it MUST issue a GET request with 'sid' Uri-Path parameter to retrieve

   the current and acceptable configuration before the expiry of the

   value enclosed in the Max-Age option.

>

   If a non-zero value of Max-Age Option is received by a DOTS client,

   it MUST issue a GET request to retrieve

   the current and acceptable configuration before the expiry of the

   value enclosed in the Max-Age option.

[TR] The proposed line is not correct. The client has to use GET request with ‘sid’ to refresh the configuration parameters it had previously negotiated.

2. [proposal] Adding trigger-mitigation to several example figures about mitigation request

[TR] The default value of trigger-mitigation is ‘true’, I don’t see the need to explicitly convey the attribute in the mitigation request.

-Tiru

Figure 7.

{

 "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {

   "scope": [

     {

       "target-prefix": [

          "2001:db8:6401::1/128",

          "2001:db8:6401::2/128"

        ],

       "target-port-range": [

         {

           "lower-port": 80

         },

         {

           "lower-port": 443

         },

         {

            "lower-port": 8080

         }

        ],

        "target-protocol": [

          6

        ],

       "lifetime": 3600,

       "trigger-mitigation": true

     }

   ]

 }

}

Figure 8.

A1                                      # map(1)

   01                                   # unsigned(1)

   A1                                   # map(1)

      02                                # unsigned(2)

      81                                # array(1)

         A5                             # map(5)

            06                          # unsigned(6)

            82                          # array(2)

               74                       # text(20)

                  323030313A6462383A363430313A3A312F313238 # "2001:db8:6401::1/128"

               74                       # text(20)

                  323030313A6462383A363430313A3A322F313238 # "2001:db8:6401::2/128"

            07                          # unsigned(7)

            83                          # array(3)

               A1                       # map(1)

                  08                    # unsigned(8)

                  18 50                 # unsigned(80)

               A1                       # map(1)

                  08                    # unsigned(8)

                  19 01BB               # unsigned(443)

               A1                       # map(1)

                  08                    # unsigned(8)

                  19 1F90               # unsigned(8080)

            0A                          # unsigned(10)

            81                          # array(1)

               06                       # unsigned(6)

            0E                          # unsigned(14)

            19 0E10                     # unsigned(3600)

            18 2D                       # unsigned(45)

            F5                          # primitive(21)

thanks,

Kaname

On 2018/08/17 21:28, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

Hi all,

This version follows the recommendations from the core WG:

* Move Hop-Limit text to a separate I-D: I-D.boucadair-core-hop-limit.

* Abandon the use of 3.00, but use 5.03 instead.

The good news is that these changes are straightforward and do not hold publication because I-D.boucadair-core-hop-limit is not a normative reference.

We also updated the text to reflect the recent publication of RFC8446 (TLS 1.3). Changes are tweaked to be aligned with the discussion with Benjamin (thanks).

Chairs, the token is yours now :)

Cheers,

Med

-----Message d'origine-----

De : I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de

internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>

Envoyé : vendredi 17 août 2018 14:19

À : i-d-announce@ietf.org<mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>

Cc : dots@ietf.org<mailto:dots@ietf.org>

Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

directories.

This draft is a work item of the DDoS Open Threat Signaling WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling

(DOTS) Signal Channel Specification

        Authors         : Tirumaleswar Reddy

                          Mohamed Boucadair

                          Prashanth Patil

                          Andrew Mortensen

                          Nik Teague

  Filename        : draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23.txt

  Pages           : 87

  Date            : 2018-08-17

Abstract:

   This document specifies the DOTS signal channel, a protocol for

   signaling the need for protection against Distributed Denial-of-

   Service (DDoS) attacks to a server capable of enabling network

   traffic mitigation on behalf of the requesting client.

   A companion document defines the DOTS data channel, a separate

   reliable communication layer for DOTS management and configuration

   purposes.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Please update these statements within the document with the RFC

   number to be assigned to this document:

   o  "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;"

   o  "RFC XXXX: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling

      (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification";

   o  "| [RFCXXXX] |"

   o  reference: RFC XXXX

   Please update TBD statements with the port number to be assigned to

   DOTS Signal Channel Protocol.

   Also, please update the "revision" date of the YANG module.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel/

There are also htmlized versions available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23

A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-23

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission

until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________

I-D-Announce mailing list

I-D-Announce@ietf.org<mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce

Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

_______________________________________________

Dots mailing list

Dots@ietf.org<mailto:Dots@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots