IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dots] Are we being too restrictive in the Alias definition requirements?

"Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Thu, 20 September 2018 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.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 F0C31130E5A for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 9PoHPh2UGuiE for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.jpshallow.com (mail.jpshallow.com [217.40.240.153]) (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 4870D130E5B for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1g2tVe-0006xb-8D for ietf-supjps-dots@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:36:22 +0100
From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: dots@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 08:36:22 +0100
Message-ID: <110001d450b4$a0da8d80$e28fa880$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1101_01D450BD.029FB8D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdRQtKDGyCEuBNg3TDqKkwOdqb36QA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/zkT6TRn-oNldu-VUHYsIXYSzlow>
Subject: [Dots] Are we being too restrictive in the Alias definition requirements?
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, 20 Sep 2018 07:36:28 -0000

Hi there,

 

Signal Draft 4.4.1.  Request Mitigation

 

   In the PUT request at least one of the attributes 'target-prefix',

   'target-fqdn', 'target-uri', or 'alias-name' MUST be present.

 

Data Draft 6.1.  Create Aliases

 

   In POST or PUT requests, at least one of the 'target-prefix',

   'target-fqdn', or 'target-uri' attributes MUST be present.  DOTS

   agents can safely ignore Vendor-Specific parameters they don't

   understand.

 

So, it is not possible to have an Alias template that contains just ports or
protocols that can be used in a mitigation request that does include the
'target-prefix', 'target-fqdn', or 'target-uri' attributes.  Is this too
restrictive?

 

Possible updates

 

Signal Draft 4.4.1.  Request Mitigation

 

NEW:

   In the PUT request at least one of the attributes 'target-prefix',

   'target-fqdn', 'target-uri', or 'alias-name' where the alias contains at
least one of the attributes 'target-prefix', 'target-fqdn', 'target-uri',
MUST be present.

 

Data Draft 6.1.  Create Aliases

 

NEW:

   In POST or PUT requests, at least one of the 'target-',

   attributes MUST be present.  DOTS

   agents can safely ignore Vendor-Specific parameters they don't

   understand.

 

 

Regards

 

Jon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email