[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-architecture-15

Michael Tüxen via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 27 January 2020 23:32 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
From: Michael Tüxen via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-dots-architecture.all@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <158016793522.16841.17266200712306088073@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Michael Tüxen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 15:32:15 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/DcRQl34XYjJbQLyyTzv_rzbxB9M>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-architecture-15

Reviewer: Michael Tüxen
Review result: Ready with Issues

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The document describes the intended architecture very well.

What is not described is how loss recovery and congestion control will be designed
to allow the signal channel to transfer message during an attack:
"Some operators may utilize non-impacted paths
or networks for DOTS, but in general conditions should be assumed
to be hostile and DOTS must be able to function in all
circumstances, including when the signaling path is significantly
impaired." 

Nit:
In Figure 4 the top and the middle client have the same name "c1.example.org". Is this intended?

[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-d… Michael Tüxen via Datatracker