IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dots] Unique use cases

"Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org> Tue, 29 March 2016 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 4319E12DA38 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 pwy9PrcvA0zK for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (plainfield.sei.cmu.edu [192.58.107.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91FF012D996 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.22]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id u2TMUiVq019950 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:30:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1459290644; bh=+8Mp8tbSBQhUHg0WESEhBf23qG55VQzOJu4ujSMLawU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=S7zp8pUaSYuIkYlVHfvHdWa90b/4KSCEaycB1IVZ+bbWGogcb40l2utYdnnuotjj+ kAuWyFAFCblOWtFWbFQuU5UQCn0KbiK9029/aJ2NSAtRwWznjAdNIkJ29+kX69sfOR T39nHy3l+e7XJ8nyT1FOkz0H87PuuvMs+/EHbUAM=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1543) with ESMTP id u2TMUfUo019956 for <dots@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:30:41 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.248]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:30:41 -0400
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>
To: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Unique use cases
Thread-Index: AdGKCJbai02bV9oeSSmarut46dOgpA==
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:30:41 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD96F75B8@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/yAqnRAZrqWn48cOHmMlx7d3gRMw>
Subject: [Dots] Unique use cases
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:30:47 -0000

Hello!

There have been three drafts to date describing use cases for DOTS:

** [WG-UC] draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01
** [ID-UC] draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01
** [IDC-UC] draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00

[WG-UC] describes 7 primary use cases (numbered [WG-UC]-1 to [WG-UC]-7); [ID-UC] describes 5 uses cases; and [IDC-UC] describes 2 use cases.  Of these 14 use cases across three drafts, are any: duplicates? more specific instances of another use case? appropriate for a more generalized use case?

(1) What's the difference between [WG-UC]'s [WG-UC]-2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 beyond the kind of device acting as the DOTS client?  The write-ups are nearly identical.

(2) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [UD-UC]-1 (Section 4.1.1) and 2 (Section 4.1.2); and [WG-UC]-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6?

(3) What's the difference between [ID-UC]'s [ID-UC]-3 (Section 4.2.1) and [ID-UC]-4 (Section 4.2.2); and [IDC-UC]-1 (Section 3.1)?

(4) [ID-UC]-5 and [IDC-UC]-2 appear to be acknowledged as the same use case in Section 4.2.3 of [ID-UC].  Is that correct?

Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email