IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 29 November 2018 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 344ED12D84D for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:31:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 99Mi43UW9duj for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta136.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D6A312D4F2 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4359hs423Jz10Lg; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:31:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.21]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4359hs37gJzFpWt; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:31:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d9f5:9741:7525:a199%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:31:09 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
Thread-Index: AdSGnlgla3cLRB5MRLWQWFaJSQftBABEEW3w
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:31:08 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E04F649@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0184C49169@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0184C49169@marathon>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/y8xTt1uEwwkKGUa5Oe0TuTdHvEw>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
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: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:31:13 -0000

Hi Roman, all,

I support this draft to be sent to the IESG for publication. 

Some easy-to-fix comment, though: 

(1) The document cites [I-D.ietf-dots-requirements] in may occurrences. I suggest these citations to be more specific, that is to point the specific REQ# or the section. Doing so would help readers not familiar with DOTS documents to easily link the various pieces. 

(2) I used to point people to the DOTS architecture I-D when I receive comments/questions about the notion of "DOTS session" and to the Requirements I-D for clarification about DOTS channels. It seems that some clarifications are needed in the architecture I-D to explain for readers not familiar with all DOTS documents, for example: 
- the link with the underlying transport sessions/connections and security associations. 
- mitigations are not bound to a DOTS session but to a DOTS client/domain. 

(3) The signal channel I-D uses "DOTS signal channel session", "DOTS signal channel sessions" and "DOTS data channel session" to refer to specific DOTS sessions. I'd like to have these terms introduced also in the arch I-D. 

BTW, the signal channel uses in few occurrences "DOTS session"; those can be changed to "DOTS signal channel session". There is no occurrence of "DOTS session" in the data channel I-D.

Thank you.  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Roman Danyliw
> Envoyé : mardi 27 novembre 2018 23:15
> À : dots@ietf.org
> Objet : [Dots] WGLC on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Consistent with our discussion at the Bangkok meeting, we are starting a
> working group last call (WGLC) for the DOTS architecture draft:
> 
> DOTS Architecture
> draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-architecture-08
> 
> Please send comments to the DOTS mailing list -- feedback on remaining issues
> or needed changes; as well as endorsements that this draft is ready.
> 
> This WGLC will end on December 12, 2018.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman and Frank
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email