From nobody Mon Jun 1 10:38:41 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED2C1B2FD1 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 cdH4wgQ2Ww-6 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B7F41B2FD6 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so67227972igb.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:38:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MAWzSO2h0NLOTlz4YbNZXgNDuI1mnFHFvXcojz0Grig=; b=mWhKpWxgqjQ0+W52D7ntybZpI9TEQuyBy8BgqaY5HSfKf1IsYJZT+bQsQkf1xJ/A4t 3D7ukUy2isdPRvU4C4T5/kruByG1pFI0WktImwuJL8EXM95UxrYJmrlggXjQx1tWkvfh zscM3kd70sG9gMHis4QobSrETdvQXxixSY5OExgtFDsaSySqYs8DxUmW5z94RnCPZw+i Z2NrybxqHlxYJVTRC4zj1UhIr76Y+pmtBn6L2ctAB7vI4cDemBqvPKcMJ4Lx0AnWseQ1 mLJY1sYhKm3GTsMw4gefbhFhqP0rMUVEZ6VzqZNnf4JwsGFJ0LdXTTUX1er+KB8WG2rO i5fA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnANREXB15ZXkUGGPzQh1AvAxPxxqsdSFXDG76XQ6wadfbqTnEaKsZq+AMUiruKNDhKzGus X-Received: by 10.107.168.164 with SMTP id e36mr27808100ioj.87.1433180312942; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.169.63.165] ([205.169.63.165]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i4sm8458130igm.2.2015.06.01.10.38.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <556C9892.9010103@flowtools.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:38:26 -0600 From: John Schiel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dots@ietf.org References: <4970C3A8-ED23-469B-818F-35414F76AD35@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] is there a need to get SoC involved in the scenario? X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:38:40 -0000 +1 to Dave and Rolland's comments. --John On 05/31/2015 10:16 AM, Dave Larson wrote: > I agree with Roland on this point. Seeking to establish dynamic > relationships (discovery) seems orthogonal to the initial goal of building > a general DDoS mitigation signaling capability. > > Dave > > On 5/30/15, 12:59 AM, "Roland Dobbins" wrote: > >> On 29 May 2015, at 21:49, Scott Barvick wrote: >> >>> How the endpoints discover or select each other after discovery seems >>> like something to be discussed, even if we end up starting with a >>> static mechanism initially. >> DDoS mitigation isn't something that lends itself to dynamic >> relationships between mitigation elements and controlling elements, for >> many reasons. Static configuration is highly desirable; any discussion >> of dynamic discovery mechanisms (as opposed to >> capability-exchange/abstraction mechanisms, which are a different topic >> and are desirable; something along the lines of >> > ?include_text=1>, >> though I'm not endorsing/promoting that particular draft, at least at >> this time) aren't really relevant for the foreseeable future, IMHO. >> >> ----------------------------------- >> Roland Dobbins >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dots mailing list >> Dots@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots From nobody Mon Jun 1 12:14:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD8C1B323B for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:14:06 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 i-SVIZVyb2cx for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f99.google.com (mail-qg0-f99.google.com [209.85.192.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD08B1B3237 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdq107 with SMTP id q107so6685652qgd.1 for ; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:13:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :user-agent:content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=kDmc2P0TQD0Frqd4Bb0w5h1kZD3YMRkKDLMy0aWuWwU=; b=MnjS/HiaJMxuZdDXt7G2UjaTPMU8SXm00J7qBoNP9dspj+Iv7chwFpJ3C6+CHpQy/v wxeIA16Pk7tMq7d6OtwVDY0ygzQPBdSJMuRSUr6hO/pb1bZ0NE1okktb6lz3LwT3Vzeb MlmjyJSJ6DBOFF4CHCWjzmBhWzD1+3A1dR0ULstsVt7vIXnsY6SBXWaD32BZKK0Y6tAe C9G2x+4l1snx1FKXUVTsunFLz+doIJJNXQ0AXdo0imeSRcX77he0+LzHKxt9xsm5fwI9 cK98yC8oY4cR6dijdCaiERtBG6U6d3sJqU5MXmdkGiNxnIgZ3V5LSKnJBHxVLS3LbD4A fW3w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTHT2xxgJQzOnmpudDHv3J8gqt6QAA5BmbBB+97h7Bg6lsjO6Twa7Z0FiGd8oF6ibsxtiiD4HDZhfEXTYkLuWyEy9wJQ== X-Received: by 10.140.47.71 with SMTP id l65mr8954316qga.5.1433186039721; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g4sm3676982qci.4.2015.06.01.12.13.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:13:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t51JDvW3018797 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:13:58 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:13:57 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Sean Turner , "dots@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] Thread-Index: AQHQkx7Dqn+0n8uoLUGYnTBjEzWvDZ2G/CGAgAFY34CAEBbIgA== Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:13:57 +0000 Message-ID: References: <555E1CA1.4040903@flowtools.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <26761875E362744FBCFB1F52C031CC28@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 19:14:06 -0000 Hi, Having taken into account John and Sean=B9s comments - please see an update below. Please let me know if you wish me to make any further revisions or whether we can proceed with this so we can get this charter reviewed in the next available slot. Thanks! -Nik -[Charter for Working Group]- The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards based approach for the real time signaling of DDoS related telemetry and threat handling data between elements concerned with attack mitigation. The elements may be described as: * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms * Other devices/platforms with network perspective engaged in traffic analysis The elements may be chained for communication to construct a larger collaborative system. These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of detection and mitigation, both on premise or service provider based. Should mitigation need to move between elements in the chain, then effective signaling of telemetry and current threat handling is essential. Feedback between participating elements is required for increased awareness supporting effective decision making. The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard protocols and mechanisms, for instance IPFIX and its templating mechanism. The WG may coordinate with other working groups and initiatives that compliment the DOTS effort E.G. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF. The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to network security applications beyond DDoS mitigation, this working group will focus on DDoS mitigation. Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is intended to meet the community's desire for a solution in the shorter term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for privacy in operation. The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. * Document or Documents specifying a protocol and associated data models to address the WG stated goal. * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) From nobody Mon Jun 1 21:44:58 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0071ACEA7 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 fvaAq8u3IKp0 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway11.websitewelcome.com (gateway11.websitewelcome.com [67.18.70.3]) (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 4134D1ACE9F for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway11.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 84FAB186193D; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:58:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway11.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7521A1861923 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:58:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [204.42.252.17] (port=55506 helo=[5.5.33.50]) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YzdL4-000504-PS; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:58:06 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:57:59 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <555E1CA1.4040903@flowtools.net> To: "Teague, Nik" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3286.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 204.42.252.17 X-Exim-ID: 1YzdL4-000504-PS X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([5.5.33.50]) [204.42.252.17]:55506 X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 04:44:57 -0000 Thanks for incorporating my comments. This looks good to me. spt On Jun 01, 2015, at 12:13, Teague, Nik wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Having taken into account John and Sean=B9s comments - please see an = update > below. Please let me know if you wish me to make any further = revisions or > whether we can proceed with this so we can get this charter reviewed = in > the next available slot. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > -Nik >=20 > -[Charter for Working Group]- >=20 > The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards > based approach for the real time signaling of DDoS related telemetry = and > threat handling data between elements concerned with attack = mitigation. >=20 > The elements may be described as: > * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms > * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms > * Other devices/platforms with network perspective engaged in traffic > analysis >=20 > The elements may be chained for communication to construct a larger > collaborative system. >=20 > These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions = is > paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, > authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed = as > part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of detection = and > mitigation, both on premise or service provider based. Should = mitigation > need to move between elements in the chain, then effective signaling = of > telemetry and current threat handling is essential. Feedback between > participating elements is required for increased awareness supporting > effective decision making. >=20 > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms, for instance IPFIX and its templating = mechanism. > The WG may coordinate with other working groups and initiatives that > compliment the DOTS effort E.G. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF. >=20 > The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards = track > specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem > space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply = to > network security applications beyond DDoS mitigation, this working = group > will focus on DDoS mitigation. Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is > intended to meet the community's desire for a solution in the shorter > term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard > mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and > providing for privacy in operation. >=20 > The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: >=20 > * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, = protocol > requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. > * Document or Documents specifying a protocol and associated data = models > to address the WG stated goal. >=20 > * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) > * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) > * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) >=20 > * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG > * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG >=20 > * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) >=20 From nobody Tue Jun 2 00:58:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829371AD291 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:58:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 KFC5SM7-gs57 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9519B1AD2A4 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by padjw17 with SMTP id jw17so55780883pad.2 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:58:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=CGtjJPnhyRdX4hvgiEFWTkT5USLHhkSyaRGUrDMlX/0=; b=VBxoU0tkBEHjcIN/WKICrLCP8CwEmXTpczf2sU5+42m4+DJoUqVUDqVF4kBO3fLYvc rev18U7lsyE+ok8lC342Aj7TxmFa4mbqxm5aE+orxheWmiGnPjUFWaaR6HGHJwzOAkiG 6z03xMbszkTh2aIBrEJY95xncis6NgvX63p1o= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=CGtjJPnhyRdX4hvgiEFWTkT5USLHhkSyaRGUrDMlX/0=; b=R+tcYU1WpTnbku9lyXvX0r4tvj7648tdmkXHtBl0DjGh4Ti+gzYdxu2UNTzH184UDH 3supiYMIZdJ0X3jftUS0SGdMOxRqjjZsMflBAYnoDjsEDSPzkBj82KVjr6rAFwMKf3bF 5n9LbrWfx++vjD0JCavUbD8nFeBnn7gFzYFFt1U04ZKuUDmyhmmWeinpkQVI5LuP5U08 dwQlahSblVzuz+3v+snBspDdrwvx8qrpFNuGyfoA71xIFqDaa8Qzl3NdoazZkhErmPwN tGGC1qL7IK9dtItUOo8pEFSgr/t0WgaoxaWaLgSXzUln/Wk0xzWXohLjbzglhRbHwb+e QENw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnDv05f/SftuBaRh2f4a/3SFNIbNLg6IsQ6aLRY/q4T7qlNkV+CJqVN7Zd/DxgoExJAxI+P X-Received: by 10.66.90.166 with SMTP id bx6mr47470053pab.76.1433231920140; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ie3sm16568569pbb.49.2015.06.02.00.58.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 00:58:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roland Dobbins" To: "dots@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:58:33 +0700 Message-ID: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:58:42 -0000 On 21 May 2015, at 0:02, Teague, Nik wrote: > Thoughts/feedback of course valued and welcome. ----- Change this: > the real time signaling of DDoS related telemetry and > threat handling data between elements concerned with attack > mitigation. to this: the realtime signaling of DDoS-related telemetry and threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation. ----- Change this: > * Other devices/platforms with network perspective engaged in traffic > analysis to this: * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or influence network traffic. ----- Change this: > The elements may be chained for communication to construct a larger > collaborative system. to this: These elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative system. ----- Change this: > Elements may be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating > multiple points of detection and > mitigation, both on premise or service provider based. to this: Elements may be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation, both on-premise or service-provider based. ----- Change this: > Should mitigation need to move between elements in the chain, then > effective signaling of > telemetry and current threat handling is essential. to this: Should changing conditions necessitate altering the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. ----- Change this: > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms, for instance IPFIX and its templating > mechanism. to this: The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating and extension mechanisms). ----- Change this: > The WG may coordinate with other working groups and initiatives that > compliment the DOTS effort E.G. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF. to this: The WG may coordinate on a situationally-appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS effort - e.g., SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF, et. al. ----- Change this: > While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to > network security applications beyond DDoS mitigation, this working > group > will focus on DDoS mitigation. to this: While the resulting standards should be designed so they can be applied to network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation, incorporating the general principles articulated in RFC5218 . ----- Change this: > This streamlined focus of the charter is > intended to lead to an earlier result due to community interests in > having > such capability in a short timeframe. to this: This streamlined nature of this charter is intended to lead to the timely development of deployable mechanisms due to strong community interest in reaping the benefits of the described capabilities in the near term. ----- Change this: > * Document or Documents specifying a protocol and associated data > models > to address the WG stated goal. to this: * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to address the stated goals of the WG. ----- ----------------------------------- Roland Dobbins From nobody Tue Jun 2 06:44:13 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8351A90BC for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:44:11 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 y3FRz49iq4IU for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f100.google.com (mail-qg0-f100.google.com [209.85.192.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 592A31A9093 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdq107 with SMTP id q107so7730477qgd.1 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :user-agent:content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=lkCTp2RgvXtBQaaq0V5mWf0JKNrrOIGGyimU6ju50oE=; b=dp+16zFWSu+3+WJnO+5pc66mxaEfIWqu5uauK84A8AnHoviy1ZBnfXwcFUHiHxSurf gaJmytD7o9zu9vmNTrJdgnOl9BJOo3eTg6HsdRyVP8jx42nNOp2xG/+Zl18xSFF2uRgm MKPvPYz5lITYvPR0lmsopfgfvWMbFtsv+XBI9sHhT0xccC47Lk89L8SPGyW9zD8gf4/h Q4ahPxfpwfmHPtuWOKw2/2I4TbBdLr1Pad+B+IHCVHA71ism+oxWgduuSiowAoVvy3Rl PNwnfCvpPa+v5Ts68tWpy8hG2OLhtXQicZ4G66pWSrGBkqB+O8Al82R/7/gZzLqO8I73 g5zA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnhzO3jPeHrKVoUAhgzMfFxAP68H473X3q5CSY37BXVfjfd4dv36MgW3E2a+obZfnQHHfr3ib07qKhmgmjITG5fZh8KLw== X-Received: by 10.55.24.167 with SMTP id 39mr47187126qky.43.1433252648529; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:44:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hx6sm4333332qcb.1.2015.06.02.06.44.07 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 06:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t52Di74Q021516 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 09:44:07 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 09:44:06 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] Thread-Index: AQHQkx7Dqn+0n8uoLUGYnTBjEzWvDZ2ZMKiAgABxTQA= Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:44:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <333D74A674EA344B87DA3389FE5BEEA3@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:44:11 -0000 Hi, I=B9ve merged Roland=B9s suggestions into the charter below. Thanks, -Nik -[Charter for Working Group]- The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. The elements may be described as: * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or influence network traffic Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative system. These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback between participating elements is required for increased awareness supporting effective decision making. The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is intended to meet the community's desire for a solution in the shorter term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for privacy in operation. The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to address the stated goals of the WG. * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) From nobody Tue Jun 2 07:08:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC441AC3A7 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 AKwuNc3gV39R for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A853B1A9300 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qczw4 with SMTP id w4so35417624qcz.2 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:08:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=a5/EN70Qi84E9UmS8H56N0yGWrqlPYr8f3bZmDdyHiM=; b=LQE3vBinva0gLhsdyvbqaBZX/4XaW+8rkzUPAFY66kDxqqLKX8AjAu6ucR4GzVZcQU SULsl04CqYUYIEAri2wkIK/GfbcxMLGsVOHx4mEVhpnGiEFre6KxVP/DPMcOBWm14KD/ 98LuNGKuw3Iuy1mz682Pa84K+pF84mx22pZiJaLzaa/TG1xONBb58o4/WhaAn+IJGR2N +OFzKgOgPgxnCIGjgpD3pq5iAFdzlg7b7a8rPhJ3YRlDAtaFXZIPodQOZ1WZ5GIUt5pk +TtcDjgui7UQ9OomK680fjm1s6yc4tcFbLOtXj2lWP72HwkU0lS3wn03MEv4bZabfYJk B2MA== X-Received: by 10.55.19.140 with SMTP id 12mr48076963qkt.64.1433254108912; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (209-6-114-252.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com. [209.6.114.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 67sm7479321qkx.38.2015.06.02.07.08.27 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:08:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Kathleen Moriarty X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:08:27 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> To: "Teague, Nik" Archived-At: Cc: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:08:31 -0000 Thank you. I'll wait until tomorrow to see if there is additional feedback a= nd then will move the charter to the next review phase. Thank you, Kathleen Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 2, 2015, at 9:44 AM, "Teague, Nik" wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I=C2=B9ve merged Roland=C2=B9s suggestions into the charter below. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > -Nik >=20 > -[Charter for Working Group]- >=20 > The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards > based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and > threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS > attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. >=20 > The elements may be described as: > * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms > * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms > * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or > influence network traffic >=20 > Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and > mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative > system. >=20 > These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is > paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, > authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as > part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, > classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service > provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the > specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation= > coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat > status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback > between participating elements is required for increased awareness > supporting effective decision making. >=20 > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating= > and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally > appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which > compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. >=20 > The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track= > specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem > space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to > network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working > group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related= > to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, > incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 > . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is= > intended to meet the community's desire for a solution in the shorter > term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard > mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and > providing for privacy in operation. >=20 > The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: >=20 > * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol > requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. > * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to= > address the stated goals of the WG. >=20 > * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) > * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) > * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) >=20 > * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG > * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG >=20 > * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots From nobody Tue Jun 2 07:13:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F331F1AC3E9 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:13:31 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 M_q7mnnGrL3X for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f172.google.com (mail-ig0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2A3D1AC3DF for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so87268237igb.1 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=saXAJM+JsKbyOHmeWh7MgsQwXYZdjAOgAlQfb53tpOo=; b=D/fXhR7hW00DQme9GrAkTAzOLCTgfA/0SYwq+XVX8u+6qvajsPrV9FPewv9JsWsNFh 4i3aDsT626FZjZN3uwfLy/slSx5smmTXvuWad0cUuT+/ce9o9h/2BUNTp1dlzMKG1omE BkwqY2uuBi+hParqxBuqqkI1aK1v8dcubbBJpMwR+QR5g1AjH7exIRpWFcl1vyIJVoad uTxCBWTOXrwOXYKQeEi3rFzNW0Ac42bfVC9P/eLUcIvuqkv32e86GFwjYXonbt1Ccx1K Lw63/3WKy09LmpslyIT468P31sk7TyimOOmBDS2Nj0DqrwzQgU9PkHrkZ8A4K6dpGwqO g58w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnV8M9LKWntYQTOjNfUGhqHOM3UQDmcH5HIxY2f6MyHPTAdksQuMMsRfRk9lM6/HrhQ2fO9 X-Received: by 10.42.88.197 with SMTP id d5mr35228712icm.44.1433254409275; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.169.63.165] ([205.169.63.165]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c63sm5589041ioe.42.2015.06.02.07.13.27 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <556DBA06.1040400@flowtools.net> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:13:26 -0600 From: John Schiel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dots@ietf.org References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:13:32 -0000 +1 --John On 06/02/2015 07:44 AM, Teague, Nik wrote: > Hi, > > I¹ve merged Roland¹s suggestions into the charter below. > > Thanks, > > -Nik > > -[Charter for Working Group]- > > The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards > based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and > threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS > attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. > > The elements may be described as: > * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms > * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms > * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or > influence network traffic > > Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and > mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative > system. > > These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is > paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, > authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as > part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, > classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service > provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the > specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation > coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat > status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback > between participating elements is required for increased awareness > supporting effective decision making. > > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating > and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally > appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which > compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. > > The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track > specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem > space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to > network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working > group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related > to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, > incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 > . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is > intended to meet the community's desire for a solution in the shorter > term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard > mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and > providing for privacy in operation. > > The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: > > * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol > requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. > * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to > address the stated goals of the WG. > > * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) > * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) > * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) > > * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG > * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG > > * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots From nobody Tue Jun 2 08:13:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A6C1ACE34 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 NUt-RNST_n3P for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x234.google.com (mail-pa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5649D1ACE2C for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by padjw17 with SMTP id jw17so63019790pad.2 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:13:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WxtK08zPlFkWBaoIASo1YYae05tgpUv6mhejW+Vszu0=; b=J2yMwU6BaeeakWoTVW4Kvoh1Z+D67XZC0qVFOsDBpKJQgXgapwe7HA8UB22LNNsc/B 2K7ERwABj4UUlOnsaM3HYDXgvtdzmskbLJD/f8f/+JN8xL84MWtFpaXT0VRVcBZUq7dZ XmuzNk05UcJW79oHTCI8bpGIY6CnlI+xF/vu8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WxtK08zPlFkWBaoIASo1YYae05tgpUv6mhejW+Vszu0=; b=CTYJgiOJl/LIXZzc1yww5CwtwwmpqWlmA3NeGZLcccTovpGolHt2bb5COLgYs7marR dVCnbjW7iNFDEgVwhNBtfN3ZVR2pmZNDpMsH2eHK1qZsFfqEa616rJ6JzWiwBn8Bv5Ul sIHodpZhO6IjXz8fsXADNvyOvKRMwA/bQG+gSgcEmenEXE13X7tkG0CoEZmNFYfW8uTf HR9VFRF+SYI1Wtsnch3QNlJ7Ux0Xad8sMGqb5KIcgwxgGv4gCA3dueqYsG3racBIsI0E tZCGZRPjQtSj4mGuxeSHT42aA5wK8pe77EefAv3vY7UOKMxqqU8HGTnYNnYmqBo1hhk+ EtKw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkvkw2RIWUV3lC5ssuNvc8TEP09h0G35VEnoG+gdhKtyvNsblooaGwR32QxkdPGsob0OMQT X-Received: by 10.66.145.133 with SMTP id su5mr50158956pab.114.1433257981841; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pj4sm17850517pbb.20.2015.06.02.08.12.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:13:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Roland Dobbins" To: "dots@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:12:56 +0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:13:04 -0000 On 2 Jun 2015, at 20:44, Teague, Nik wrote: > IĀ¹ve merged RolandĀ¹s suggestions into the charter below. Just some slight wordsmithing: ----- Change this: > Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is intended to meet the community's > desire for a solution in the shorter term. to this: Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the near term. ----- Thanks again! ----------------------------------- Roland Dobbins From nobody Tue Jun 2 08:31:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5135D1ACD7B for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:31:51 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 U87medfUyg6Q for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-f99.google.com (mail-oi0-f99.google.com [209.85.218.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C8061A012D for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiav63 with SMTP id v63so7881010oia.3 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :user-agent:content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=7Y/TSXJAqUWTIsCbGLY5ifY+FQZdHPxAbvVGnbsrU6w=; b=K1Qd9lNXJnF+1XDZiU2Zp2zvZigzEQAIda3I4QK6Ku+sxYhYFCqjv3Vph6Z35wdWw3 Mu08vmw6txRrmgovqmDRn0T42KmkNGyC2qeFB2J9X2Qk2/+gIP1iysr6AAiSv8bMs3kq WmRRL6YONnx/m3/CpT3m8zglgQ1257p+O/ioeH6t0ObVHqq4soNNb8IgtoYv9BdQ28j8 GoK8rlQx724PsNobF2geGTjmcB0toeEIxnkDVSc6UJ6O4Fn0wOXIANw7jY/1bU/a5Dp6 B7ErK6esydbdHBfy3rjS6XDV6BuO3hzRBPoi2OpEPVxGC6JWHeG5RRYUVPN2GhijQ205 lkwg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQky3IyVPsBrNA4z7Cvgf30Rdz6vyjeOqHtKoj/rFC4eyROpuYNGj7mcZ4GW6cZwwBkTCFwtL1yuh8kPWdGjgMeeln10rA== X-Received: by 10.140.148.72 with SMTP id 69mr30047164qhu.15.1433259108682; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lx8sm4415099qcb.2.2015.06.02.08.31.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Jun 2015 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t52FVlVM002203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:31:47 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:31:47 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] Thread-Index: AQHQkx7Dqn+0n8uoLUGYnTBjEzWvDZ2ZMKiAgABxTQCAAAgQAIAAFgQA Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:31:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <7DA63D9E4A93D04A943A8D2025B94A6B@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:31:51 -0000 Hi, Updated again with Roland=B9s last tweak... -Nik -[Charter for Working Group]- The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. The elements may be described as: * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or influence network traffic Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative system. These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback between participating elements is required for increased awareness supporting effective decision making. The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the near term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for privacy in operation. The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to address the stated goals of the WG. * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) From nobody Wed Jun 3 01:53:25 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347661B3685 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:53:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 Pnz5RgH21So2 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 161E41B3686 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 01:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.211] (ip-77-24-215-195.web.vodafone.de [77.24.215.195]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 347CD6349F; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:53:19 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=HB6yBHxgMsJ8BO9+laRt732jl8D00UcVkHOz2kaxSnE6wG1cHQKQwjupsuuN90PDfVxoUu1MY9WOsnhb2Xoaq97bWIFM/bTkjc815o6vZMvVlVcKkAgq0MNg557p/4dPAC1a6bVPgj358r2OEgIhSFVhaF1GxPeAOSmoaU4/xxo=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <556EC07E.9000704@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 10:53:18 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nteague@verisign.com, rdobbins@arbor.net, dots@ietf.org References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060704090505090601080501" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:53:24 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060704090505090601080501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, looks good to me. I fully support this WG and believe these are important elements for the Internet. And I think it is good that we are quite open in the charter and do not exclude possible solution paths. That will give us the opportunity to explore and combine various possible solution approaches to form the best defense. Small nits for the charter: Milestones: s/* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG/ * Mar-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG Best regards, Tobias On 02/06/15 17:31, Teague, Nik wrote: > Hi, > > Updated again with Roland¹s last tweak... > > -Nik > > -[Charter for Working Group]- > > The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards > based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and > threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS > attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. > > The elements may be described as: > * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms > * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms > * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or > influence network traffic > > Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and > mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative > system. > > These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is > paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, > authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as > part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, > classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service > provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the > specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation > coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat > status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback > between participating elements is required for increased awareness > supporting effective decision making. > > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating > and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally > appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which > compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. > > The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track > specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem > space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to > network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working > group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related > to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, > incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 > . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is > intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the > near term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a > standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, > and providing for privacy in operation. > > The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: > > * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol > requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. > * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to > address the stated goals of the WG. > > * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) > * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) > * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) > > * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG > * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG > > * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------060704090505090601080501 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all,

looks good to me.
I fully support this WG and believe these are important elements for the Internet.

And I think it is good that we are quite open in the charter and do not exclude possible solution paths.
That will give us the opportunity to explore and combine various possible solution approaches to form the best defense.

Small nits for the charter:
Milestones:
s/* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG/ * Mar-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG

Best regards, Tobias



On 02/06/15 17:31, Teague, Nik wrote:
Hi,

Updated again with Roland¹s last tweak...

-Nik

-[Charter for Working Group]-

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or
influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and
mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative
system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions.  Robustness under these conditions is
paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication,
authorization, privacy and data integrity.  Elements may be deployed as
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection,
classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service
provider based.  Should changing conditions necessitate altering the
specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation
coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat
status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential.  Feedback
between participating elements is required for increased awareness
supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating
and extension mechanisms).  The WG may coordinate on a situationally
appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which
compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track
specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem
space.  While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to
network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working
group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related
to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation,
incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5218>.  Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is
intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the
near term.  The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity,
and providing for privacy in operation.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol
requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to
address the stated goals of the WG.

* Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational)
* Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard)
* Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard)

* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG
* May-2016: Transport draft to IESG
* Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG

* Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals)

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------060704090505090601080501-- From nobody Wed Jun 3 04:01:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724361A1B1B for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 NEGilHx0aAGe for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E5AD1A1B20 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.211] (ip-77-24-215-195.web.vodafone.de [77.24.215.195]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B4C56349F for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:01:33 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=xsmpnp10j+Tkh1x7smZs6rMuH8JjtC//ulSd6GoBRzVLnIpQTpfhM1EP+yJAiKy3Vsws0gTT+ngzq/wBSslxpKpn+kTzRpqVhJOoZ8BjpF+PZ+2I0XLCsfJjKYnE4k/F6ml/yIXb8sivHBpPIxH0hlatgvlyFqswu+Qen4+EJvU=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <556EDE8C.9020402@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:01:32 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dots@ietf.org References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> <556EC07E.9000704@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: <556EC07E.9000704@gondrom.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000102060406060406000808" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:01:40 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000102060406060406000808 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Apologies. The nits was of course: Milestones: s/* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG/ * Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG Best, Tobias On 03/06/15 10:53, Tobias Gondrom wrote: > Hi all, > > looks good to me. > I fully support this WG and believe these are important elements for > the Internet. > > And I think it is good that we are quite open in the charter and do > not exclude possible solution paths. > That will give us the opportunity to explore and combine various > possible solution approaches to form the best defense. > > Small nits for the charter: > Milestones: > s/* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG/ * Mar-2015: > Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > > Best regards, Tobias > > > > On 02/06/15 17:31, Teague, Nik wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Updated again with Roland¹s last tweak... >> >> -Nik >> >> -[Charter for Working Group]- >> >> The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards >> based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and >> threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS >> attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. >> >> The elements may be described as: >> * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms >> * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms >> * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or >> influence network traffic >> >> Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and >> mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative >> system. >> >> These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over >> links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile >> conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized >> signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is >> paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, >> authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as >> part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, >> classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service >> provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the >> specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation >> coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat >> status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback >> between participating elements is required for increased awareness >> supporting effective decision making. >> >> The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard >> protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating >> and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally >> appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which >> compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. >> >> The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track >> specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem >> space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to >> network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working >> group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related >> to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, >> incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 >> . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is >> intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the >> near term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a >> standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, >> and providing for privacy in operation. >> >> The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: >> >> * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol >> requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. >> * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to >> address the stated goals of the WG. >> >> * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) >> * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) >> * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) >> >> * Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG >> * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG >> * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG >> >> * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dots mailing list >> Dots@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------000102060406060406000808 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Apologies. The nits was of course:

Milestones:
s/* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG/ * Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG

Best, Tobias
On 03/06/15 10:53, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hi all,

looks good to me.
I fully support this WG and believe these are important elements for the Internet.

And I think it is good that we are quite open in the charter and do not exclude possible solution paths.
That will give us the opportunity to explore and combine various possible solution approaches to form the best defense.

Small nits for the charter:
Milestones:
s/* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG/ * Mar-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG

Best regards, Tobias



On 02/06/15 17:31, Teague, Nik wrote:
Hi,

Updated again with Roland¹s last tweak...

-Nik

-[Charter for Working Group]-

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or
influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and
mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative
system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions.  Robustness under these conditions is
paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication,
authorization, privacy and data integrity.  Elements may be deployed as
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection,
classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service
provider based.  Should changing conditions necessitate altering the
specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation
coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat
status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential.  Feedback
between participating elements is required for increased awareness
supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating
and extension mechanisms).  The WG may coordinate on a situationally
appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which
compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track
specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem
space.  While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to
network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working
group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related
to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation,
incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5218>.  Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is
intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the
near term.  The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity,
and providing for privacy in operation.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol
requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to
address the stated goals of the WG.

* Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational)
* Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard)
* Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard)

* Feb-2015: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG
* May-2016: Transport draft to IESG
* Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG

* Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals)

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots




_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------000102060406060406000808-- From nobody Wed Jun 3 04:08:54 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D3F1A1B25 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 Tsh9ZEcxX9XG for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C3071A1B39 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.43.211] (ip-77-24-215-195.web.vodafone.de [77.24.215.195]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9E696349F; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:08:41 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=49PPUCTehTDAnighuzZL3NuaZRZejHY7NHxRr2MT7H5q8D3jEPy3U9rYFGwBvbC0rI0Tn34B9pl5p002fTjGxNNCnsb1mqHUMmvFc4uW5rbhEfWGfVoE/1OiiTKQ4n3bWDcotkgefBnxB0e6cTvf9snEaxPjW+sfiFoy4InZBII=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <556EE038.6000304@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:08:40 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jschiel@flowtools.net, dots@ietf.org References: <4970C3A8-ED23-469B-818F-35414F76AD35@arbor.net> <556C9892.9010103@flowtools.net> In-Reply-To: <556C9892.9010103@flowtools.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020407080909050909090000" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] is there a need to get SoC involved in the scenario? X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:08:53 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020407080909050909090000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I tend to agree. But mostly because SoC and discovery are bigger than just DDoS and I see (and hope) that this work will be done in I2NSF. They have the right expertise and people in the room. In the end, DOTS can then hopefully refer to I2NSF for that functionality as needed. I definitely believe that the problem is important and that the IETF should address it. Best, Tobias On 01/06/15 19:38, John Schiel wrote: > +1 to Dave and Rolland's comments. > > --John > > On 05/31/2015 10:16 AM, Dave Larson wrote: >> I agree with Roland on this point. Seeking to establish dynamic >> relationships (discovery) seems orthogonal to the initial goal of >> building >> a general DDoS mitigation signaling capability. >> >> Dave >> >> On 5/30/15, 12:59 AM, "Roland Dobbins" wrote: >> >>> On 29 May 2015, at 21:49, Scott Barvick wrote: >>> >>>> How the endpoints discover or select each other after discovery seems >>>> like something to be discussed, even if we end up starting with a >>>> static mechanism initially. >>> DDoS mitigation isn't something that lends itself to dynamic >>> relationships between mitigation elements and controlling elements, for >>> many reasons. Static configuration is highly desirable; any discussion >>> of dynamic discovery mechanisms (as opposed to >>> capability-exchange/abstraction mechanisms, which are a different topic >>> and are desirable; something along the lines of >>> >> >>> ?include_text=1>, >>> though I'm not endorsing/promoting that particular draft, at least at >>> this time) aren't really relevant for the foreseeable future, IMHO. >>> >>> ----------------------------------- >>> Roland Dobbins >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dots mailing list >>> Dots@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots >> _______________________________________________ >> Dots mailing list >> Dots@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------020407080909050909090000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I tend to agree.

But mostly because SoC and discovery are bigger than just DDoS and I see (and hope) that this work will be done in I2NSF.
They have the right expertise and people in the room. In the end, DOTS can then hopefully refer to I2NSF for that functionality as needed. I definitely believe that the problem is important and that the IETF should address it.

Best, Tobias


On 01/06/15 19:38, John Schiel wrote:
+1 to Dave and Rolland's comments.

--John

On 05/31/2015 10:16 AM, Dave Larson wrote:
I agree with Roland on this point.  Seeking to establish dynamic
relationships (discovery) seems orthogonal to the initial goal of building
a general DDoS mitigation signaling capability.

Dave

On 5/30/15, 12:59 AM, "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:

On 29 May 2015, at 21:49, Scott Barvick wrote:

How the endpoints discover or select each other after discovery seems
like something to be discussed, even if we end up starting with a
static mechanism initially.
DDoS mitigation isn't something that lends itself to dynamic
relationships between mitigation elements and controlling elements, for
many reasons.  Static configuration is highly desirable; any discussion
of dynamic discovery mechanisms (as opposed to
capability-exchange/abstraction mechanisms, which are a different topic
and are desirable; something along the lines of
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xia-i2nsf-capability-interface-im/
?include_text=1>,
though I'm not endorsing/promoting that particular draft, at least at
this time) aren't really relevant for the foreseeable future, IMHO.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------020407080909050909090000-- From nobody Wed Jun 3 06:13:21 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E45D21A8822 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 06:13:19 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 MYaS62aayafj for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 06:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f97.google.com (mail-qg0-f97.google.com [209.85.192.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E511A87F2 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 06:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgaj5 with SMTP id j5so372038qga.2 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :user-agent:content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=ZeiVRSNjb4c7Xp//rp9wazqqB+bFXfzG2rpaYl2TT6s=; b=EJY1AnJtIJivy9irGRuDDGK8VS/YNBAni6zscgqOXfqjZPUCqgIMcpBOJWLaiyciyF Re4jxUzpOAmeLwuVop6MaMh4dwY/GSzJuPe5QawKO9dIXvWuAYa7FypMarTQ7dEugQMY 3yaEGv6SPeWM9FmpLLvcwdWAZSZh8CVx90vcnon/nba9+Roiv1YS1tYb/oDZN1OtrrDY BHxqB7QRCKYFWAIzeAqOMYfsYoTsPP4QY5QImuE6kP3gO30ujBxaVDWB9DPFzixEetHp umxLJs+yxTZutSn0fPFbFNTZqq5qRhqGpXjZmsmztKOhKhaYpTOEAiha2SG1ftgJRJ+3 Csjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnM0Eqn3XdYfnkaBeigbBSmyFBxH0FPOQi0YiXkC4mpBEyXl5GT239ZUpdZlyMPns3a/KarDEzp7ww4SGbj9iMKgjDnKg== X-Received: by 10.55.26.165 with SMTP id l37mr57455752qkh.88.1433337193339; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:13:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fg3sm179591qcb.4.2015.06.03.06.13.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2015 06:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t53DDCsR017258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:13:12 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:13:12 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Tobias Gondrom , "dots@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] Thread-Index: AQHQkx7Dqn+0n8uoLUGYnTBjEzWvDZ2ZMKiAgABxTQCAAAgQAIAAFgQAgAESQACAACPUAIAANYgA Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:13:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> <556EC07E.9000704@gondrom.org> <556EDE8C.9020402@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: <556EDE8C.9020402@gondrom.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5CF60235EE12214581AA1230A950C9F7@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:13:20 -0000 Hi, Updated to correct the nits Tobias highlighted on the milestone date (Thanks!) -Nik -[Charter for Working Group]- The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. The elements may be described as: * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or influence network traffic Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative system. These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback between participating elements is required for increased awareness supporting effective decision making. The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the near term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for privacy in operation. The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to address the stated goals of the WG. * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) * Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) From nobody Thu Jun 4 06:43:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8781B34C2 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 61iS-Ju0xt4g for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F491B34C0 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so47942685wig.0 for ; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:32:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PbjoJ+EgKAvH8Y7tXr9gvkPE2hXhU64EcsidGTtu4oE=; b=FJImkxmXknXP216zptr2ShhUtmfDF+xEwcDEA2JMWnMB0nXEBLYWz+/044dEy8vAvB eZ0Nln72uvRuo9OPsDH9MXRDN41dhYWxJpXhFI504uFRl/nBRDipQp2hEgEidNeS5d8T n5ut6RkkpPisfunL33GiHsw5aMzfSunkuTJE6dDTJGmowahothW3ijT27hJfz9VrDUBy oNbO5tlEcNbnijU5841k+7WtafprUAwc8QnVr4w4o0cB3U3DskcN7RneaxqaaFzo8gmk 7mQ6RBNNEPd0jcGTEQiPq+eNBkoperdz0EjjQWNxzc8UcSlhar3ZkN361MmnunsCNTlB x/mA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.86.168 with SMTP id q8mr50626583wiz.80.1433424731844; Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:32:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <88E7DEFA-6F4D-465F-83A2-9540FDA865F2@arbor.net> <556EC07E.9000704@gondrom.org> <556EDE8C.9020402@gondrom.org> Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:32:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: "Teague, Nik" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5555030f435800517b13315 Archived-At: Cc: Tobias Gondrom , "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] draft DOTS WG Charter [updated] X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 13:43:09 -0000 --bcaec5555030f435800517b13315 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello, I put forward the charter text in the last message for IESG and IAB review. I would like to see this effort move quickly and will monitor progress of it closely to make sure there is enough traction to continue this as a WG once formed. I'd like to see the requirements draft move forward in advance of the projected date as I think that will be too tight to move the other drafts forward and meet the dates specified. I'd like to see the requirements draft to the IESG (through WG last call) by the end of November. The chairs will need to manage this closely and ensure editors are responsive and add editors or change them as needed to meet these deadlines. Thank you, Kathleen On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Teague, Nik wrote: > Hi, > > Updated to correct the nits Tobias highlighted on the milestone date > (Thanks!) > > -Nik > > -[Charter for Working Group]- > > The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards > based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and > threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS > attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. > > The elements may be described as: > * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms > * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms > * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or > influence network traffic > > Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and > mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative > system. > > These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is > paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, > authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as > part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, > classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service > provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the > specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation > coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat > status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback > between participating elements is required for increased awareness > supporting effective decision making. > > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating > and extension mechanisms). The WG may coordinate on a situationally > appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which > compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. > > The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track > specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem > space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to > network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working > group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related > to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, > incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 > . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is > intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the > near term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a > standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, > and providing for privacy in operation. > > The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: > > * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol > requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. > * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to > address the stated goals of the WG. > > * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) > * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) > * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) > > * Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG > * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG > > * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > -- Best regards, Kathleen --bcaec5555030f435800517b13315 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

I put forward the charter text i= n the last message for IESG and IAB review.=C2=A0 I would like to see this = effort move quickly and will monitor progress of it closely to make sure th= ere is enough traction to continue this as a WG once formed.=C2=A0 I'd = like to see the requirements draft move forward in advance of the projected= date as I think that will be too tight to move the other drafts forward an= d meet the dates specified.=C2=A0 I'd like to see the requirements draf= t to the IESG (through WG last call) by the end of November.

=
The chairs will need to manage this closely and ensure editors a= re responsive and add editors or change them as needed to meet these deadli= nes.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 a= t 9:13 AM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,

Updated to correct the nits Tobias highlighted on the milestone date
(Thanks!)

-Nik

-[Charter for Working Group]-

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative
system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions.=C2=A0 Robustness under these conditions = is
paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication,
authorization, privacy and data integrity.=C2=A0 Elements may be deployed a= s
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service
provider based.=C2=A0 Should changing conditions necessitate altering the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation<= br> coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential.=C2=A0 Feedb= ack
between participating elements is required for increased awareness
supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating<= br> and extension mechanisms).=C2=A0 The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which
compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track<= br> specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem
space.=C2=A0 While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply= to
network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related<= br> to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation,
incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218
<https= ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5218>.=C2=A0 Focusing the WG efforts on DD= oS is
intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in th= e
near term.=C2=A0 The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for privacy in operation.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to<= br> address the stated goals of the WG.

* Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational)
* Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard)
* Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard)

* Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases dr= aft to IESG
* May-2016: Transport draft = to IESG
* Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG

* Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals)


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots



--
=

Best regards,
Kathleen
--bcaec5555030f435800517b13315-- From nobody Sun Jun 7 02:56:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC3F1A1A9F; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.4 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6] autolearn=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 1gXXGrLQuAKY; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B941A1A9E; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:54:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150606225455.14459.65732.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:54:55 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 02:56:38 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 22:54:57 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There is likely significant overlap here with deployed stuff , and M3AAWG would know about that. I will talk with people about that during the upcoming week at M3AAWG in Dublin, and I will make sure that the external review message is posted to the M3AAWG Technical Committee. But I would appreciate it if the charter explicitly called out collaboration with M3AAWG. From nobody Mon Jun 8 08:28:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5706C1B2EF2; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 08:26:29 -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] autolearn=ham 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 6GZCKTkSVQPk; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 08:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5DD1B2F04; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 08:26:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:26:19 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:28:05 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: [Dots] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:26:29 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is not a BLOCK but I'd like to chat about it and may consider it being a BLOCK at the next stage, depending on the discussion. The text says "providing for privacy in operation" but I think it ought say "providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices being the default in all cases" (or similar). This kind of reporting can easily end up privacy-unfriendly, especially when we're saying the WG should consider "network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space" which could be interpreted by some to include very privacy-unfriendly applications. So I think explicitly calling for the default to be whatever privacy-friendly choices exist and are usable is important here. From nobody Mon Jun 8 09:29:49 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9BB1A9151; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:25:02 -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] autolearn=ham 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 FPJfywOd0yTV; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C1E1A912A; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:25:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alvaro Retana" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:25:01 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:29:48 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:25:02 -0000 Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The text says that the WG will reuse or extend existing standard protocols and mechanisms, which is great! However, is the intent for dots to standardize those extensions (if needed)? IOW, if an existing protocol (for signaling, for example) is extended, I think that the WG responsible for that protocol should be the one driving the standardization based on the requirements from dots. The text mentions ipfix as an example; I know the ipfix WG is closed, so it can't take ownership of the extensions, but the OPS area should at least be consulted. After saying all that, I would suggest adding something explicit about consulting, coordinating, etc. with other WGs that may be responsible for any protocols being extended. Maybe something like this: "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be carried out in the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified and in co-ordination with this working group, but may be done in this working group after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area Directors." From nobody Wed Jun 10 04:22:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BEB1A008A; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:35:18 -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] autolearn=ham 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 lIeTd1XhUizS; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E861A0092; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:35:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ben Campbell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150610023516.1872.75515.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:35:16 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:22:48 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: [Dots] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:35:18 -0000 Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I concur with Stephen's comment about privacy-friendly defaults. From nobody Wed Jun 10 12:55:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392EA1A8972; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:54:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 QFj8WkU-m1zF; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 194981A896C; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:54:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:54:08 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:32 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:54:09 -0000 Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support the chartering, but I have a question about this paragraph: "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized signaling and telemetry solutions." Is this text trying to make a statement that, for instance, TCP cannot be used for transporting threat signaling? As this text says "hostile conditions for connection oriented". And if so, what would be the intended alternative, if any? From nobody Wed Jun 10 12:59:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793C11A895B for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 3CUE9tkbIWlY for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1209D1A874A for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiwd19 with SMTP id d19so58386598wiw.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XOkQb2AEwO/HIzMi3Wg1tF+O+b/D0NWNLERaEswg6MQ=; b=jqpDDBkdqnv++chS6vZvSNUOQlu/p3Tv3mZIFlLLU110vK5po4YhnAouB4Jap0lmXN kmB475m2kEfKs2WyXcHc928C0efa/gbeNJ5JzZIDtsilfTrZ0ZbD077ukdlbHtWxMU3Y c48JQzwet0y+qkdRxTwgOzImX7AsqoAmNcnCEeQhIVpPCs/y3oVEvNKOyusmmfPr7Ndh rffXJDF2GMXdPQqCpqaWetYXxar3yecKIPsYFYIXHcqri+YVIqFeyIRkjk+ya+HoovFO 7VbrvR9D9bLlDrGI3KG70fvZktz9Zqiie/0VMS7o+ocJYUbiV07aTTkeThq2faZumSP4 q2zA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.9.104 with SMTP id y8mr9497105wja.86.1433966383749; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:59:43 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: "dots@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d9889ec625705182f5070 Archived-At: Subject: [Dots] IESG comments on charter X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:59:46 -0000 --047d7b5d9889ec625705182f5070 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello, Do the proponents or BoF chairs have any responses to the IESG comments coming in on the charter? We have a call tomorrow where this will be reviewed and it would be good to see some responses. Thank you. -- Best regards, Kathleen --047d7b5d9889ec625705182f5070 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

Do the proponents or BoF chairs = have any responses to the IESG comments coming in on the charter?=C2=A0 We = have a call tomorrow where this will be reviewed and it would be good to se= e some responses.

Thank you.

--

= Best regards,
Kathleen
--047d7b5d9889ec625705182f5070-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:06:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F181A8AED; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:06:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 AOYBZ93f6qca; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A29AF1A8AF7; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (x5ce39938.dyn.telefonica.de [92.227.153.56]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85FD9634A5; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:05:56 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=FuRu+WfMe0la8OY46bAc01rULnL3YjIAHaFnnKf5tO4FYDHeIIWbR2kzrH8wXiQD2gFHbx5BlrmfInVbK/7X1aj4mK2qnpMc/PKFBt+irFtI1LIAuxi8WP1SeMiIJjWJX8RLVanu8YtVrp0wHPnzOMyquHgjfMh6mmc68IQWRyc=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <557898A4.40208@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:05:56 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, iesg@ietf.org References: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000405070103050500070508" Archived-At: Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:06:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000405070103050500070508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Stephen, I would agree with your proposed edit and think this is a good point. Fully in support of the proposed edit. Best regards, Tobias On 08/06/15 17:26, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not a BLOCK but I'd like to chat about it and may consider > it being a BLOCK at the next stage, depending on the discussion. > The text says "providing for privacy in operation" but I think it > ought say "providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly > choices being the default in all cases" (or similar). This kind of > reporting can easily end up privacy-unfriendly, especially when > we're saying the WG should consider "network security applications > beyond the DDoS problem space" which could be interpreted by > some to include very privacy-unfriendly applications. So I think > explicitly calling for the default to be whatever privacy-friendly > choices exist and are usable is important here. > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------000405070103050500070508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Stephen,

I would agree with your proposed edit and think this is a good point.
Fully in support of the proposed edit.

Best regards, Tobias


On 08/06/15 17:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not a BLOCK but I'd like to chat about it and may consider
it being a BLOCK at the next stage, depending on the discussion.
The text says "providing for privacy in operation" but I think it
ought say "providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly
choices being the default in all cases" (or similar). This kind of 
reporting can easily end up privacy-unfriendly, especially when 
we're saying the WG should consider "network security applications 
beyond the DDoS problem space" which could be interpreted by 
some to include very privacy-unfriendly applications. So I think 
explicitly calling for the default to be whatever privacy-friendly
choices exist and are usable is important here.


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------000405070103050500070508-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:12:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 350711A90ED; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:12:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 DktMmhhHjJ4g; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3B731A90EB; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (x5ce39938.dyn.telefonica.de [92.227.153.56]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EB4863699; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:12:40 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=t5fRSTUiKLlZM7tRVKRK23ueED3pQmxFlBttimUf1SwKQ6ieoB8dai79u6TFZ8kuxS7zI+5fhG2RXnpOmX+hv+HT6pFQ0dIjh6PPk0PgUPt/QM3gHfFlG6VUpSUqOGEJSqqkv5h1EG+l/gaZkBCusvAD7lCum78CcgXkMLdut6Q=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:12:39 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mls.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080505010509040406010007" Archived-At: Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:12:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080505010509040406010007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Martin, attempting to answer this from my own personal view: my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate and consider which communication protocol would be best suited to function under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe the WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has decided already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating in these challenging environments. I hope that helps to answer your question. Best regards, Tobias On 10/06/15 21:54, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support the chartering, but I have a question about this paragraph: > > "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions." > > Is this text trying to make a statement that, for instance, TCP cannot > be used for transporting threat signaling? As this text says "hostile > conditions for connection oriented". And if so, what would be the > intended alternative, if any? > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------080505010509040406010007 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Martin,

attempting to answer this from my own personal view:

my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate and consider which communication protocol would be best suited to function under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe the WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has decided already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating in these challenging environments.

I hope that helps to answer your question.

Best regards, Tobias



On 10/06/15 21:54, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the chartering, but I have a question about this paragraph:

"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions."

Is this text trying to make a statement that, for instance,  TCP cannot
be used for transporting threat signaling?  As this text says "hostile
conditions for connection oriented". And if so, what would be the
intended alternative, if any?


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------080505010509040406010007-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:19:11 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0A31A90FA for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:19:06 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 BtXrWsj_GaRG for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-f97.google.com (mail-oi0-f97.google.com [209.85.218.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0585D1A88FC for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiax69 with SMTP id x69so3516438oia.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=goWiNYGWdodWb4quxH2gl0pQgQl15OgX8OhPZaRiucc=; b=Qj/UWIaSeqaXUPOVCXfU859OuGQYCVnJdaNF3wEK5vx88TLyHi6yQHynB5FWax3Jeg nhIozsx/YkPC8vP32KZdh9XwhpPezG3Gubq0pKua5nL8IP92ftKVuVOt3ZZm4aGmTO/P Vfy7fnLhtzl+FdXBN+YWy74Sw7VECcufp41k3qz38J6bHp1/EA8f73x5Y3EYnL/BFshU JYcRAbmgf2EXDbYH7JIUyOGX8bfBGWu5SoqarSA85rNvEsf5Xf/cQabwVCJNJbSSX8+H oI8gW1KtWYZQnBeUQ/L+UIu13Nz+rAtSOD1TanMbVMBdGU82uGwG1ixc7LIliPS0Wt2a YhCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTb0OQ5ZBxDxy5gaxRerOROMQ0D+5Tx5S6rPPKRN9cjilOof0yiDD+kJWz3Ke4juMFim1pZqHLdr0d8Rs2xTCRvppK7g== X-Received: by 10.140.94.116 with SMTP id f107mr6358443qge.101.1433967544266; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lx8sm2907164qcb.2.2015.06.10.13.19.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5AKJ21f019909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:19:03 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:19:02 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG Thread-Topic: [Dots] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQof+6BJLm0gKT/ECN6X8bAumoU52mhTKA Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:19:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:19:06 -0000 U3RlcGhlbiBoaSwNCg0KSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIGFkZGluZyBmdXJ0aGVyIGNsYXJpZmljYXRpb24g dG8gdGhpcyBwb2ludCBhbmQgdG8gdGhlDQpwcm9wb3NlZCBlZGl0IHRvIG1ha2UgcHJpdmFjeSBm cmllbmRseSBjaG9pY2VzIGEgZGVmYXVsdCBpbiBhbGwgY2FzZXMuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KLU5p aw0KDQpPbiAwOC8wNi8yMDE1IDE2OjI2LCAiU3RlcGhlbiBGYXJyZWxsIiA8c3RlcGhlbi5mYXJy ZWxsQGNzLnRjZC5pZT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj4NCj5UaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGFsb25nIHdpdGggb3Ro ZXIgYmFsbG90IHBvc2l0aW9ucywgY2FuIGJlIGZvdW5kIGhlcmU6DQo+aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJh Y2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvY2hhcnRlci1pZXRmLWRvdHMvDQo+DQo+DQo+DQo+LS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLQ0KPkNPTU1FTlQ6DQo+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPg0KPlRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGEgQkxPQ0sg YnV0IEknZCBsaWtlIHRvIGNoYXQgYWJvdXQgaXQgYW5kIG1heSBjb25zaWRlcg0KPml0IGJlaW5n IGEgQkxPQ0sgYXQgdGhlIG5leHQgc3RhZ2UsIGRlcGVuZGluZyBvbiB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4N Cj5UaGUgdGV4dCBzYXlzICJwcm92aWRpbmcgZm9yIHByaXZhY3kgaW4gb3BlcmF0aW9uIiBidXQg SSB0aGluayBpdA0KPm91Z2h0IHNheSAicHJvdmlkaW5nIGZvciBwcml2YWN5IGluIG9wZXJhdGlv biwgd2l0aCBwcml2YWN5LWZyaWVuZGx5DQo+Y2hvaWNlcyBiZWluZyB0aGUgZGVmYXVsdCBpbiBh bGwgY2FzZXMiIChvciBzaW1pbGFyKS4gVGhpcyBraW5kIG9mDQo+cmVwb3J0aW5nIGNhbiBlYXNp bHkgZW5kIHVwIHByaXZhY3ktdW5mcmllbmRseSwgZXNwZWNpYWxseSB3aGVuDQo+d2UncmUgc2F5 aW5nIHRoZSBXRyBzaG91bGQgY29uc2lkZXIgIm5ldHdvcmsgc2VjdXJpdHkgYXBwbGljYXRpb25z DQo+YmV5b25kIHRoZSBERG9TIHByb2JsZW0gc3BhY2UiIHdoaWNoIGNvdWxkIGJlIGludGVycHJl dGVkIGJ5DQo+c29tZSB0byBpbmNsdWRlIHZlcnkgcHJpdmFjeS11bmZyaWVuZGx5IGFwcGxpY2F0 aW9ucy4gU28gSSB0aGluaw0KPmV4cGxpY2l0bHkgY2FsbGluZyBmb3IgdGhlIGRlZmF1bHQgdG8g YmUgd2hhdGV2ZXIgcHJpdmFjeS1mcmllbmRseQ0KPmNob2ljZXMgZXhpc3QgYW5kIGFyZSB1c2Fi bGUgaXMgaW1wb3J0YW50IGhlcmUuDQo+DQo+DQo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0K From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:32:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE8B1AC414 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham 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 ao4jVxYAS2Q4 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E2CF1AC41C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so43535836igb.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lcNCTg+Nwckx6TltGUs16NmQcHTGgVKgwMad3h4bIp4=; b=iDfHfdyDoIaIMrxmOdU9YBRFsgpBsQ8QIlkMvZJ0Uy4t6uOYKVtkii1CoUPs20dNxY Evm6wqrCH8iIySaDCrPXTHhS4Ce2PMzLQcE4dW28RanEwTg5taVNah3lo2dN+cO3qPH4 nInnamBEOuu6lLrqDtUeAUEz0eMQVy2xaQEKM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=lcNCTg+Nwckx6TltGUs16NmQcHTGgVKgwMad3h4bIp4=; b=EgYNwwDeIauXBQDbMLcsLIgRZkxi6aJFFx3XyaZolBuXfiT4e1AE7xbQq9QsdWd5Ep udyFqzUws1pn9cq/gdOFGyPAoDkytTt+x09xpQ8/MBJpS70sU9AkYcGFSBzckTNXUNUI JVJW2NWpm9NjY+6uY0BO3s9PUTdZN423vJ6+BcoiMExt1PJrSxtCnaxeOuQq/2HAfCYu cykaZ5CYCdgKRS4Uj7hT6VBJp/42ZASq/jsYK/tQYkS0Fj/f09bYHr4+6O2VWk6/6HaT cnj+3Uf4QSf4KJWhHIzeCovhKpyEX2demazXf2s9E7oT5Y2id6ZCwDiRJxt+tyMCtr3U QjtQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHJTQrMlHmNq0zZ/EXN2zELnVtCLubWDOOUB0Cc2GnoZO6h5vImFJhVCgw8ylF8Qvuw93e X-Received: by 10.50.90.179 with SMTP id bx19mr30225261igb.43.1433968307076; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from desktop-10-13.aa.arbor.net ([216.130.192.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm3954769ige.0.2015.06.10.13.31.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: Andrew Mortensen In-Reply-To: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:31:45 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20150608152619.20693.11466.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Stephen Farrell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: The IESG , dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:31:52 -0000 Adding my support for making privacy-friendliness an explicit default. andrew > On Jun 8, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Farrell = wrote: >=20 > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > This is not a BLOCK but I'd like to chat about it and may consider > it being a BLOCK at the next stage, depending on the discussion. > The text says "providing for privacy in operation" but I think it > ought say "providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly > choices being the default in all cases" (or similar). This kind of=20 > reporting can easily end up privacy-unfriendly, especially when=20 > we're saying the WG should consider "network security applications=20 > beyond the DDoS problem space" which could be interpreted by=20 > some to include very privacy-unfriendly applications. So I think=20 > explicitly calling for the default to be whatever privacy-friendly > choices exist and are usable is important here. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:44:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA521ACD19; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zksGA7tnZM_I; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C08F1ACD0B; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so59529459wig.0; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1Oj7NfsXjAWKCPss1BBFNC1U4oonVF6zja+khy+kGbo=; b=v09ZC5mvtg1uyq9pjAdMJ+XBcsq8mcXXK9SU6Fk/rKAOijSY7UcMujyvXs9LV/MVBs 5OQVNkyH2S3/CywHZuQGBpPG8hZ+g8qnWsrb/F0UrHRRuUEvNawF034d72hZQHM0/sGB ZBH/joZCXIIGCPBX9C6kJhGG/j91A7K0rs9zAfg3sbjRqjttuelzB3N2LWfHbpQq628H BZ+TE+Cv2v22/2FnZpoAfdWFs83giRJB4sDTvgvNVqDuZe5hJ1uYFhY5CiYBGIYpNHwD 4uHHmC7KbXME9oS6H/Z64jxts4h3AHOa6SSbhxmyBlW0c2m7WpPG1PyY2tIF9a6PhmP4 /a2g== X-Received: by 10.180.109.6 with SMTP id ho6mr22765398wib.58.1433968998047; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Martins-MBP.fritz.box ([2001:1a80:2809:700:d54f:1549:face:3e19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tl3sm16184774wjc.20.2015.06.10.13.43.16 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:43:15 +0200 From: Martin Stiemerling User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Gondrom , iesg@ietf.org References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:44:52 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:43:21 -0000 Hi Tobias, Am 10.06.15 um 22:12 schrieb Tobias Gondrom: > Hello Martin, > > attempting to answer this from my own personal view: > > my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very > well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate and > consider which communication protocol would be best suited to function > under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe the > WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has decided > already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to > investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating in > these challenging environments. > > I hope that helps to answer your question. That answers my question, but I guess that this fact has to be documented in the charter much more explicitly. My next question would be: Is there the assumption that the DOTS signaling is travelling the reverse path of the DoS attack? Or is the DOTS signaling ok travelling a different path from one NE under attack the an upstream NE under attack, thus avoiding the potential congested downsteam path? Thanks/Danke schön! Martin From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:45:16 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055521A8ABD; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TfBNoj8xmkPe; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133871ACD2A; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Martin Stiemerling" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150610204327.18561.19150.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:27 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:45:15 -0700 Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's Block on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with BLOCK) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:43:31 -0000 Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dots-00-01: Block When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [updated to DISCUSS, after the email discussion with Tobias] The charter has to document the fact that the WG might be required to evaluate what transport protocol should be used for transporting DOTS. My next question would be: Is there the assumption that the DOTS signaling is travelling the reverse path of the DoS attack? Or is the DOTS signaling ok travelling a different path from one NE under attack the an upstream NE under attack? My original question is below: I support the chartering, but I have a question about this paragraph: "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized signaling and telemetry solutions." Is this text trying to make a statement that, for instance, TCP cannot be used for transporting threat signaling? As this text says "hostile conditions for connection oriented". And if so, what would be the intended alternative, if any? From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:52:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45121B2B9A for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:54 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 EUXTDMXDJJbU for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-f100.google.com (mail-oi0-f100.google.com [209.85.218.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 279A71ACD1C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiav1 with SMTP id v1so306559oia.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ZUBlz7+9bPQ+fpBPnKYuZpXtbEzx+GHkYwNpA1tlqOQ=; b=AnQ80jCz/2/437pn23ljyifLjE/J9BAmQcTVolgCu5hjlEIBW8FzFKyIMCGXi3VWr7 RBDbXz7h+5mKkPm03RILVDNj+TeDlwwmetPt7NovsNSrND0r27kicM6XlYynSdAX1mEP rfWB3bL3G9qLrFx8s2+c54IKZxog1kYz3OQ89h6T8ZebLwk/0rL0EbfdjdhR7iSnuVai r6BmrnYSGg/y1aEzV91UOYkuY6pkddoPDdmTEOdDWgQ5S06S+qdl6NHG6D3pRetjhp9h ZkkOcfnICkJ82sANCkytMwu3nMcv7v1uu3Ch9XYBmpfgG9eqWw5e4N/Ir4Zu1OZAsVzB 3yZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl4fucVYHOPEwa8hLQHTzbZlUW3VY/Nvs3O1DFnuPJ9R5SWc+6iM3uXBbzY2ZSfRa8hg1dpIKqzdOxtDqj2uOPprDS4sw== X-Received: by 10.140.92.132 with SMTP id b4mr6518316qge.93.1433969572478; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fg3sm2923314qcb.4.2015.06.10.13.52.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5AKqpbc023744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:52:51 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:52:51 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Martin Stiemerling , The IESG Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mizeA Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:52:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <63C095AA854E8843A601741C9307E81D@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:52:54 -0000 TWFydGluIGhpLA0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIFRvYmlhcyBleHByZXNzZWQgaXQgdmVyeSB3ZWxsIGluIGhp cyByZXNwb25zZS4NCg0KTXkgZXhwZXJpZW5jZSBoYXMgYmVlbiB0aGF0IGV2ZW4gaWYgYW4gcGFy dGljaXBhdGluZyBlbGVtZW50IGlzIG5vdCwNCml0c2VsZiwgYmVpbmcgYXR0YWNrZWQgdGhhdCBh IGxpbmsvY2lyY3VpdCBpbiB0aGUgcGF0aCBtYXkgYmUgY29uZ2VzdGVkDQpkdWUgdG8gdGhlIGF0 dGFjayBhbmQgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGNhbiBpbXBhY3QgdGhlIHN0YWJpbGl0eSBvZiBjb25uZWN0aW9u DQpvcmllbnRlZCBwcm90b2NvbHMuICBJIHN1cHBvcnQgVG9iaWFz4oCZcyBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgdGhh dCB0aGUgV0cgaXMgbm90IHlldA0KcmVhZHkgdG8gcnVsZSBvdXQgYW55IHByb3RvY29scyBidXQg dGhhdCB0aGUgY2hvaWNlIG9mIHNpZ25hbCB0cmFuc3BvcnQNCm5lZWRzIHRvIGZpdCB3aXRoaW4g dGhlIGF0dGFjayBlbnZpcm9ubWVudC4NCg0KSSBkb27igJl0IHRoaW5rLCB0aG91Z2gsIHRoYXQg dGhlIFdHIHNob3VsZCBvcGVyYXRlIHVuZGVyIHRoZSBhc3N1bXB0aW9uDQp0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdp bGwgYWx3YXlzIGJlIGFuIG91dCBvZiBiYW5kIG9yIGFsdGVybmF0ZSBwYXRoIG5vciBzaG91bGQg aXQNCmFzc3VtZSB0aGF0IHRoZSBwYXRoIHdpbGwgYWx3YXlzIGJlIGNvbmdlc3RlZC4gIFRoZSBX RyB3b3VsZCBjb25zaWRlciBib3RoDQpwb3NzaWJpbGl0aWVzIGFuZCBkZXRlcm1pbmUgdGhlIGJl c3Qgc29sdXRpb24uDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KLU5paw0KDQpPbiAxMC8wNi8yMDE1IDIwOjU0LCAi TWFydGluIFN0aWVtZXJsaW5nIiA8bWxzLmlldGZAZ21haWwuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4NCj4tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+Q09NTUVOVDoNCj4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+DQo+SSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBj aGFydGVyaW5nLCBidXQgSSBoYXZlIGEgcXVlc3Rpb24gYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBwYXJhZ3JhcGg6DQo+ DQo+IlRoZXNlIGVsZW1lbnRzIG1heSBiZSBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW5nIGludGVyLWRvbWFpbiBvciBp bnRyYS1kb21haW4gb3Zlcg0KPmxpbmtzIHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIGNvbmdlc3RlZCBieSBhdHRhY2sg dHJhZmZpYyByZXN1bHRpbmcgaW4gaG9zdGlsZQ0KPmNvbmRpdGlvbnMgZm9yIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24g b3JpZW50ZWQgYXBwcm9hY2hlcyBhbmQgbW9yZSBnZW5lcmFsaXplZA0KPnNpZ25hbGluZyBhbmQg dGVsZW1ldHJ5IHNvbHV0aW9ucy4iDQo+DQo+SXMgdGhpcyB0ZXh0IHRyeWluZyB0byBtYWtlIGEg c3RhdGVtZW50IHRoYXQsIGZvciBpbnN0YW5jZSwgIFRDUCBjYW5ub3QNCj5iZSB1c2VkIGZvciB0 cmFuc3BvcnRpbmcgdGhyZWF0IHNpZ25hbGluZz8gIEFzIHRoaXMgdGV4dCBzYXlzICJob3N0aWxl DQo+Y29uZGl0aW9ucyBmb3IgY29ubmVjdGlvbiBvcmllbnRlZCIuIEFuZCBpZiBzbywgd2hhdCB3 b3VsZCBiZSB0aGUNCj5pbnRlbmRlZCBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZSwgaWYgYW55Pw0KPg0KPg0KPl9fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+RG90cyBtYWlsaW5n IGxpc3QNCj5Eb3RzQGlldGYub3JnDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0 aW5mby9kb3RzDQoNCg== From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:54:15 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9486C1A6FFE; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:54:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 66eds2aZNIBf; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 349731A1A31; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (x5ce39938.dyn.telefonica.de [92.227.153.56]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79EC0634A5; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:54:08 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=5Jlia5CLN0LDKnrbH9BahxPvfMOtVASrfP7rrlo9pdGP94W23V/z6Iah3AYU2PQ/q7OYrPCoYRj0sEOJ7j4JJima60K4vyA4G7iSavVk/c0CO8eIPfcRkPjjGjNsfo+/5KVBKVI+hy5owtN0lVv9b+xM0kNcRIiPNPwqYgVRG64=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:54:08 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mls.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060700020400080707010704" Archived-At: Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:54:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060700020400080707010704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Martin, again only answering as an individual. On 10/06/15 22:43, Martin Stiemerling wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > Am 10.06.15 um 22:12 schrieb Tobias Gondrom: >> Hello Martin, >> >> attempting to answer this from my own personal view: >> >> my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very >> well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate and >> consider which communication protocol would be best suited to function >> under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe the >> WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has decided >> already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to >> investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating in >> these challenging environments. >> >> I hope that helps to answer your question. > > That answers my question, but I guess that this fact has to be > documented in the charter much more explicitly. IMHO the charter's current text and openness on the question of specific protocol and that we start looking at requirements should be sufficient to allow us to look for and choose the best protocol options. I note that I might be biased as I attended the BOF and obviously see the charter in the context of the BOF meeting. Still I feel the current text is sufficient on this. Having said that, I have no objections on adding text to further clarify this explanation of openness if you feel that it is not clear enough. > > My next question would be: > Is there the assumption that the DOTS signaling is travelling the > reverse path of the DoS attack? Or is the DOTS signaling ok travelling > a different path from one NE under attack the an upstream NE under > attack, thus avoiding the potential congested downsteam path? IMHO: No, the assumption is not that it is (necessarily) the reverse path. However, be advised that a whole cluster of NEs might be experiencing an attack and we need to consider how to communicate that information across the nodes under stress. Best regards, Tobias > > Thanks/Danke schön! > > Martin --------------060700020400080707010704 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Martin,

again only answering as an individual.


On 10/06/15 22:43, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
Hi Tobias,

Am 10.06.15 um 22:12 schrieb Tobias Gondrom:
Hello Martin,

attempting to answer this from my own personal view:

my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very
well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate and
consider which communication protocol would be best suited to function
under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe the
WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has decided
already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to
investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating in
these challenging environments.

I hope that helps to answer your question.

That answers my question, but I guess that this fact has to be documented in the charter much more explicitly.

IMHO the charter's current text and openness on the question of specific protocol and that we start looking at requirements should be sufficient to allow us to look for and choose the best protocol options.
I note that I might be biased as I attended the BOF and obviously see the charter in the context of the BOF meeting. Still I feel the current text is sufficient on this. Having said that, I have no objections on adding text to further clarify this explanation of openness if you feel that it is not clear enough.


My next question would be:
Is there the assumption that the DOTS signaling is travelling the reverse path of the DoS attack? Or is the DOTS signaling ok travelling a different path from one NE under attack the an upstream NE under attack, thus avoiding the potential congested downsteam path?

IMHO: No, the assumption is not that it is (necessarily) the reverse path. However, be advised that a whole cluster of NEs might be experiencing an attack and we need to consider how to communicate that information across the nodes under stress.

Best regards, Tobias



Thanks/Danke schön!

  Martin

--------------060700020400080707010704-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 13:58:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6043D1A89B0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:58:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 X5KnvQG0FKqr for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi0-f99.google.com (mail-oi0-f99.google.com [209.85.218.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF95A1ACD29 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oiav1 with SMTP id v1so314893oia.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VB0xiAPtvW/86pj4WIBGb5pQLpyJCrEIurfW5mv3EXQ=; b=Xn3My9Yo+ht8xexzYE44KV1tPJQaloHdwutmO5uWjWXBYTRYpQfrpt4et3qW6+uurk VYHmE9S5qD72Odo94hK5LgQVopqnET5WhoWn3yugpGPbAz341fGMpL/WPY4VspqsOYUv 7DqKw3xXCS6qzqVhvw0Rkr+kqdNXpYnXNLj41HKYTuABVMdybs4naM/tyMGqmW9BM7it iZ8U8MwpAoBqxkBuVEsDvLXRdHyMaW85rOkdw5/EIzNPmSmqZZ3phr3hItDqfsApqtgm qBQRWHGhMd2yq4yGLrX7T4rzfYt1s/gd3DpC1kBvMqv3jKSUJe2BcUvfS87Iuf22lBXL sUBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnrfCMXieo0YzE65aQJbUz0u6SqUhLaEt05f2IBqmcLQCKa174lSFUW1p8hUlz86LXJZSkk2wTjjRd6jtoni0Y6yYMYKQ== X-Received: by 10.55.40.18 with SMTP id o18mr11221608qkh.58.1433969920322; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dh10sm2948001qcb.0.2015.06.10.13.58.39 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5AKwdqN024441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:58:39 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:58:39 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Barry Leiba , The IESG Thread-Topic: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQo8A578ShRev87kuWpOtEYYVDHQ== Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:58:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150606225455.14459.65732.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150606225455.14459.65732.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:58:44 -0000 QmFycnkgaGksDQoNCldlIGNhbiBjZXJ0YWlubHkgZXhwbGljaXRseSBjYWxsIG91dCBNM0FBV0cg Y29sbGFib3JhdGlvbiBhbmQgd29yayB0byB0aGF0DQplbmQuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KLU5paw0K DQpPbiAwNi8wNi8yMDE1IDIzOjU0LCAiQmFycnkgTGVpYmEiIDxiYXJyeWxlaWJhQGNvbXB1dGVy Lm9yZz4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPkNPTU1FTlQ6DQo+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LQ0KPg0KPlRoZXJlIGlzIGxpa2VseSBzaWduaWZpY2FudCBvdmVybGFwIGhlcmUgd2l0aCBkZXBs b3llZCBzdHVmZiAsIGFuZCBNM0FBV0cNCj53b3VsZCBrbm93IGFib3V0IHRoYXQuICBJIHdpbGwg dGFsayB3aXRoIHBlb3BsZSBhYm91dCB0aGF0IGR1cmluZyB0aGUNCj51cGNvbWluZyB3ZWVrICBh dCBNM0FBV0cgaW4gRHVibGluLCBhbmQgSSB3aWxsIG1ha2Ugc3VyZSB0aGF0IHRoZQ0KPmV4dGVy bmFsIHJldmlldyBtZXNzYWdlIGlzIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgTTNBQVdHIFRlY2huaWNhbCBDb21t aXR0ZWUuICBCdXQNCj5JIHdvdWxkIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgaXQgaWYgdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIgZXhwbGlj aXRseSBjYWxsZWQgb3V0IGNvbGxhYm9yYXRpb24NCj53aXRoIE0zQUFXRy4NCj4NCj4NCj5fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPkRvdHMgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0DQo+RG90c0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vZG90cw0KDQo= From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:09:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E45F1A88AC for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:09:05 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 MJTtGgaD195L for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f99.google.com (mail-qg0-f99.google.com [209.85.192.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886871ACE61 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdq107 with SMTP id q107so3598640qgd.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:08:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2HuRuf4Tto01tnwf4rdTEnkxyuvPES/YxK6TzuboK8E=; b=VEq7bsk29nDeUpUbkIKdvx+GTl+t36t9QSTkG7rqCbmgHqKoR2roIulNdC7bP8TwzK 80o/A2/nXcnI6e5JtQ5YkWvV4oFcpKITQEYCmNZ4c/XIoDcDaidzWCTwqtiMMabnX80S ONvLBi0foAjVJQY6ggnHuN7YjpFg3yQh4SRfc54bp8P8onAhJ5n+XqBeWLQdemEwE4Qr /aeVsm4OiKfp9ir7fsThyMRX1mEPc5ElH9jSN5zaaThLIidm5IydpMLr9PdhWAMOxuhT N52pI2HH2xDgjAogmWMa/ovfspukHD9aalAAw9plWjk2H6/uqtuK/NHv4OIB2Yt6il8R 5qaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnmi9vcLLNknypqSaARU+OxLFcL6nR0WFPcpTLZWlXwNkjR00jMBBhWdbpdXbXkyweb3DQln9Df8PYSKhzdnVVq/M+BMg== X-Received: by 10.140.147.195 with SMTP id 186mr7113436qht.59.1433970535734; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dh10sm2956375qcb.0.2015.06.10.14.08.55 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:08:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5AL8sRL019773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:08:54 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:08:54 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Alvaro Retana , The IESG Thread-Topic: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQoghZ5VDVnfbVf0mMAjmB11BZgp2mkxEA Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:08:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <8D380884127E514DB29690B7E008512D@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:09:05 -0000 SGksDQoNCklmIHdlIGRpZCBpbmRlZWQgZXh0ZW5kL21vZGlmeSBhbnkgZXhpc3RpbmcgcHJvdG9j b2xzIHRoZW4gbXkgdGFrZSBvbiBpdA0Kd291bGQgYmU6IGlmIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHdlIHdvdWxk IHRoZW4gc3VibWl0IHRob3NlIHRvIHRoZSByZWxldmFudA0KcmVzcG9uc2libGUgV0figJlzIG9y IEFyZWHigJlzIGZvciBhcHByb3ZhbC9zdGFuZGFyZGlzYXRpb24uICBJIHdvdWxkIGJlIGZpbmUN CndpdGggdXBkYXRpbmcgdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIgd2l0aCB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGVkIHRleHQuDQoNClRo YW5rcywNCg0KLU5paw0KDQpPbiAwOC8wNi8yMDE1IDE3OjI1LCAiQWx2YXJvIFJldGFuYSIgPGFy ZXRhbmFAY2lzY28uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4NCj4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+Q09NTUVOVDoNCj4t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+DQo+VGhlIHRleHQgc2F5cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBXRyB3aWxsIHJldXNlIG9y IGV4dGVuZCBleGlzdGluZyBzdGFuZGFyZA0KPnByb3RvY29scyBhbmQgbWVjaGFuaXNtcywgd2hp Y2ggaXMgZ3JlYXQhICBIb3dldmVyLCBpcyB0aGUgaW50ZW50IGZvcg0KPmRvdHMgdG8gc3RhbmRh cmRpemUgdGhvc2UgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyAoaWYgbmVlZGVkKT8gIElPVywgaWYgYW4gZXhpc3RpbmcN Cj5wcm90b2NvbCAoZm9yIHNpZ25hbGluZywgZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUpIGlzIGV4dGVuZGVkLCBJIHRo aW5rIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHDQo+cmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoYXQgcHJvdG9jb2wgc2hvdWxkIGJl IHRoZSBvbmUgZHJpdmluZyB0aGUNCj5zdGFuZGFyZGl6YXRpb24gYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIHJlcXVp cmVtZW50cyBmcm9tIGRvdHMuICBUaGUgdGV4dCBtZW50aW9ucw0KPmlwZml4IGFzIGFuIGV4YW1w bGU7IEkga25vdyB0aGUgaXBmaXggV0cgaXMgY2xvc2VkLCBzbyBpdCBjYW4ndCB0YWtlDQo+b3du ZXJzaGlwIG9mIHRoZSBleHRlbnNpb25zLCBidXQgdGhlIE9QUyBhcmVhIHNob3VsZCBhdCAgbGVh c3QgYmUNCj5jb25zdWx0ZWQuDQo+DQo+QWZ0ZXIgc2F5aW5nIGFsbCB0aGF0LCBJIHdvdWxkIHN1 Z2dlc3QgYWRkaW5nIHNvbWV0aGluZyBleHBsaWNpdCBhYm91dA0KPmNvbnN1bHRpbmcsIGNvb3Jk aW5hdGluZywgZXRjLiB3aXRoIG90aGVyIFdHcyB0aGF0IG1heSBiZSByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBmb3IN Cj5hbnkgcHJvdG9jb2xzIGJlaW5nIGV4dGVuZGVkLiAgTWF5YmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgdGhp czoNCj4NCj4iQW55IG1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBvciBleHRlbnNpb24gdG8gZXhpc3RpbmcgcHJv dG9jb2xzIG11c3QgYmUgY2FycmllZA0KPm91dCBpbiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgcmVzcG9u c2libGUgZm9yIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBiZWluZyBtb2RpZmllZCBhbmQNCj5pbiBjby1vcmRpbmF0 aW9uIHdpdGggdGhpcyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwLCBidXQgbWF5IGJlIGRvbmUgaW4gdGhpcyB3b3Jr aW5nDQo+Z3JvdXAgYWZ0ZXIgYWdyZWVtZW50IHdpdGggYWxsIHRoZSByZWxldmFudCBXRyBjaGFp cnMgYW5kIHJlc3BvbnNpYmxlDQo+QXJlYSBEaXJlY3RvcnMuIg0KPg0KPg0KPl9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+RG90cyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QN Cj5Eb3RzQGlldGYub3JnDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9k b3RzDQoNCg== From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:10:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B468C1A88D1; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 x6UcQaGSts41; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B0DC1A88AC; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (x5ce39938.dyn.telefonica.de [92.227.153.56]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5535634A5; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:09:59 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=ZZ24+FT/dY7SJH/2GlSkQhs29lwpTHp5TYNWBY1s0VeZqcrMiqJLyBuE4KLWWlG+wMz/5fiMOzrNOX/Pl44PsWnBXXnP5oWrovQwK8T7qNZWolzRpJglWT9zSN/mt0Oad4PBnQiGdwSxMq4LNW8hMaHnwC9LQvOkzKRyRih8bhg=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <5578A7A7.80602@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:09:59 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aretana@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org References: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030707060406010309020508" Archived-At: Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:10:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030707060406010309020508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alvaro, to reply to your comment: IMHO coordination across IETF WGs is kind of a given to me. So I can understand why it was not mentioned before. But equally, it should not be a problem to add a statement to that effect. However, I would propose to modify the text you proposed in some ways, because I have faith in our WGs, ADs and our community overall to resolve possible scope conflicts quite well and believe it should be up to the WGs (and ADs) to decide where a work item is addressed. E.g. one WG might be overly busy with other tasks and not able to address a certain topic within a reasonable timeframe and we should not use the quite strict wording in your text suggestion in this charter to limit our options where to put work items. Furthermore, the decision where a certain work item should be addressed should be determined by the WGs and the IETF community. This can be reflected by WG chairs, but WG chairs should not be seen as the decision makers themselves which it sounds like in your text. So my proposal would be: "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors." Best regards, Tobias On 08/06/15 18:25, Alvaro Retana wrote: > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The text says that the WG will reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms, which is great! However, is the intent for > dots to standardize those extensions (if needed)? IOW, if an existing > protocol (for signaling, for example) is extended, I think that the WG > responsible for that protocol should be the one driving the > standardization based on the requirements from dots. The text mentions > ipfix as an example; I know the ipfix WG is closed, so it can't take > ownership of the extensions, but the OPS area should at least be > consulted. > > After saying all that, I would suggest adding something explicit about > consulting, coordinating, etc. with other WGs that may be responsible for > any protocols being extended. Maybe something like this: > > "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be carried > out in the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified and > in co-ordination with this working group, but may be done in this working > group after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible > Area Directors." > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------030707060406010309020508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alvaro,

to reply to your comment:

IMHO coordination across IETF WGs is kind of a given to me.

So I can understand why it was not mentioned before. But equally, it should not be a problem to add a statement to that effect.

However, I would propose to modify the text you proposed in some ways, because I have faith in our WGs, ADs and our community overall to resolve possible scope conflicts quite well and believe it should be up to the WGs (and ADs) to decide where a work item is addressed. E.g. one WG might be overly busy with other tasks and not able to address a certain topic within a reasonable timeframe and we should not use the quite strict wording in your text suggestion in this charter to limit our options where to put work items. Furthermore, the decision where a certain work item should be addressed should be determined by the WGs and the IETF community. This can be reflected by WG chairs, but WG chairs should not be seen as the decision makers themselves which it sounds like in your text.


So my proposal would be:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors."

Best regards, Tobias



On 08/06/15 18:25, Alvaro Retana wrote:
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The text says that the WG will reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms, which is great!  However, is the intent for
dots to standardize those extensions (if needed)?  IOW, if an existing
protocol (for signaling, for example) is extended, I think that the WG
responsible for that protocol should be the one driving the
standardization based on the requirements from dots.  The text mentions
ipfix as an example; I know the ipfix WG is closed, so it can't take
ownership of the extensions, but the OPS area should at  least be
consulted.

After saying all that, I would suggest adding something explicit about
consulting, coordinating, etc. with other WGs that may be responsible for
any protocols being extended.  Maybe something like this:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be carried
out in the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified and
in co-ordination with this working group, but may be done in this working
group after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible
Area Directors."


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------030707060406010309020508-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:16:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3867E1A898E for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:16:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 pQVLghvc6o93 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x232.google.com (mail-ig0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219981A8965 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so44622801igb.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:16:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=m/bCSTs6Zw1H4gRh9LHUmTzR4psEIBXoq/kN1cEPeXE=; b=bY+dI1HuEuN3Tfxz/cmpWl+tVeJXxkOeyGxUHAwB2vIr8sQ1ilf1mJQufu2glmPV/M SrETTfLyI6XUMop/URGkBJfQ/pQpkveczAe3r2BEnHLHY03HZM45uGekQCRDsWJj/9P5 +7WDAmRRImJM4QHdIG12W63CrVxZ/m41h+Dps= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=m/bCSTs6Zw1H4gRh9LHUmTzR4psEIBXoq/kN1cEPeXE=; b=D3DlGb4AqVH9FePXbImpC0RjKg1LARG7WiHwDO8JOItSYLMyngMac/mN8fFS5ZVqPv ++2AydlYLuYcS0YNro1q4HEqPAZiAV5O8ZCFSVraATUC0+7I1EsgGEOIs/kFF4OQZOhW RF7xlOyN4HIJ5J12sDKgxTP+pTX1kqOZWKJu5liFEtpivIBbYAfQXP71xEJRYFin4/aK 0xKNW9GBPloF9n9yb+vhbcteZlEqv926d+arwdvusFYliDJ6smvrIsoOXxEmNx4YQNlE na16BgUnd8yX4pU7cm1pSiPB6TRSMrwFVqmE9LN4P2KmG2VLn8H3qxo7at58Tcmx8CrQ lqSg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUCGKj5PEPZFnwb7RuNAxdnziHuG/0u7LT2hoVj+u40mmIVhVFM21Bs5a6ZwziYLbrWS7v X-Received: by 10.107.130.101 with SMTP id e98mr6920800iod.80.1433970965493; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from desktop-10-13.aa.arbor.net ([216.130.192.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qt1sm4026685igb.5.2015.06.10.14.16.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C62176BF-FC10-49D7-A2CC-229ABC8532D3" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) From: Andrew Mortensen In-Reply-To: <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:03 -0400 Message-Id: <95BBF788-BAE5-42D5-808C-21C7D6D803E2@arbor.net> References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> To: Tobias Gondrom X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) Archived-At: Cc: mls.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:16:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C62176BF-FC10-49D7-A2CC-229ABC8532D3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > On Jun 10, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Tobias Gondrom = wrote: >=20 > Hi Martin,=20 >=20 > again only answering as an individual.=20 >=20 >=20 > On 10/06/15 22:43, Martin Stiemerling wrote: >> Hi Tobias,=20 >>=20 >> Am 10.06.15 um 22:12 schrieb Tobias Gondrom:=20 >>> Hello Martin,=20 >>>=20 >>> attempting to answer this from my own personal view:=20 >>>=20 >>> my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very=20= >>> well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate = and=20 >>> consider which communication protocol would be best suited to = function=20 >>> under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe = the=20 >>> WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has = decided=20 >>> already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to=20= >>> investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating = in=20 >>> these challenging environments.=20 >>>=20 >>> I hope that helps to answer your question.=20 >>=20 >> That answers my question, but I guess that this fact has to be = documented in the charter much more explicitly.=20 >=20 > IMHO the charter's current text and openness on the question of = specific protocol and that we start looking at requirements should be = sufficient to allow us to look for and choose the best protocol options.=20= > I note that I might be biased as I attended the BOF and obviously see = the charter in the context of the BOF meeting. Still I feel the current = text is sufficient on this. Having said that, I have no objections on = adding text to further clarify this explanation of openness if you feel = that it is not clear enough.=20 My understanding is somewhat different. While the WG hasn=92t eliminated = any transport options at this stage, emphasizing the need for = =93robustness=94 under "hostile=94 conditions for "connection oriented = protocols=94 looks to me like periphrasis for =93TCP will be a poor = choice for the signaling transport under attack conditions.=94 That this = language met approval from the WG suggests a general, albeit tacit, = agreement on that point. If that=92s not the case, we should make it explicit in the charter. >> My next question would be:=20 >> Is there the assumption that the DOTS signaling is travelling the = reverse path of the DoS attack? Or is the DOTS signaling ok travelling a = different path from one NE under attack the an upstream NE under attack, = thus avoiding the potential congested downsteam path?=20 >=20 > IMHO: No, the assumption is not that it is (necessarily) the reverse = path. However, be advised that a whole cluster of NEs might be = experiencing an attack and we need to consider how to communicate that = information across the nodes under stress. Again my understanding differs. I do not believe that the signaling = element can rely on the availability of a separate path to the upstream = element, and must be able to signal over the congested link. Hence the = emphasis on need for protocol robustness under hostile conditions. andrew --Apple-Mail=_C62176BF-FC10-49D7-A2CC-229ABC8532D3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
On Jun 10, 2015, at 4:54 PM, Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:

=20 =20
Hi Martin,

again only answering as an individual.


On 10/06/15 22:43, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
Hi Tobias,

Am 10.06.15 um 22:12 schrieb Tobias Gondrom:
Hello Martin,

attempting to answer this from my own personal view:

my understanding is that we need to recognise that such NEs may very
well be under attack themselves and we as a WG need to investigate and
consider which communication protocol would be best suited to function
under such difficult conditions of "under attack". I do not believe the
WG is at this stage discounting any one specific protocol or has decided
already for one protocol choice. But that we rather say we need to
investigate and see what protocol is a good method for communicating in
these challenging environments.

I hope that helps to answer your question.

That answers my question, but I guess that this fact has to be documented in the charter much more explicitly.

IMHO the charter's current text and openness on the question of specific protocol and that we start looking at requirements should be sufficient to allow us to look for and choose the best protocol options.
I note that I might be biased as I attended the BOF and obviously see the charter in the context of the BOF meeting. Still I feel the current text is sufficient on this. Having said that, I have no objections on adding text to further clarify this explanation of openness if you feel that it is not clear enough.

My = understanding is somewhat different. While the WG hasn=92t eliminated = any transport options at this stage, emphasizing the need for = =93robustness=94 under "hostile=94 conditions for "connection oriented = protocols=94 looks to me like periphrasis for =93TCP will be a poor = choice for the signaling transport under attack conditions.=94 That this = language met approval from the WG suggests a general, albeit tacit, = agreement on that point.

If that=92s = not the case, we should make it explicit in the charter.

My next = question would be:
Is there the assumption that the DOTS signaling is travelling the reverse path of the DoS attack? Or is the DOTS signaling ok travelling a different path from one NE under attack the an upstream NE under attack, thus avoiding the potential congested downsteam path?

IMHO: No, the assumption is not that it is (necessarily) the reverse path. However, be advised that a whole cluster of NEs might be experiencing an attack and we need to consider how to communicate that information across the nodes under = stress.

Again my = understanding differs. I do not believe that the signaling element can = rely on the availability of a separate path to the upstream element, and = must be able to signal over the congested link. Hence the emphasis on = need for protocol robustness under hostile conditions.

andrew


= --Apple-Mail=_C62176BF-FC10-49D7-A2CC-229ABC8532D3-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:26:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FB01B2C04 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 816BjWzWBrzM for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f98.google.com (mail-qg0-f98.google.com [209.85.192.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D3C1B2C03 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so3612340qgd.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language:user-agent:content-type :content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=43mP21Z8O5CiPsccTq3Aui8ldi3dLpaSohhBgDpFL3k=; b=L/HdCzYfyPhJpTMfpZF+CApIeknpEN+Oe4rQTE4ZpW3Tc1ibOx0RGcPGyocuS6ucw+ fDT9tZt+bOf9wcacnbsoPz4DzjUps5W4HP0OIxQEhrWssUSN9LvoxpRR0WIT1ytpkGUv 04+0rPWDEhAAt2q/BGnw5Q4aGsJqSm5o1z01TvwoJgSgLvP9MqAGEvq3Xygj6TSdjawK i0ApsPBsY//TOWwjvyrroI+y3qrsvvRTMieu7f92klkLeWz4cqCkmn7nfCohgIwFEgWd wHfjVVWSccyH21OGwQboFipX66pJGZezDw9tb2Vqy4dbwRJ3nkcLgidTSFQP2UCwMiH+ n2XA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkR2DAk9vBmjl+J20irUD+JWGhBAlA8IJwZ11sQC//nG8GfmRCjK3iVpym32TfKnNc6E+bfGIlInsuXeylPLYr3LawIXg== X-Received: by 10.140.231.19 with SMTP id b19mr6976802qhc.22.1433971555914; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fg3sm2948170qcb.4.2015.06.10.14.25.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:25:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5ALPtqF021898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:25:55 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:25:54 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: "dots@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DOTS draft charter - updated in regard to ballot comments Thread-Index: AQHQo8QI7uU2i+x510aY9pRO7pCBZQ== Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <307D71D7D1E2324B82A6A050292E2229@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - updated in regard to ballot comments X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:25:59 -0000 SGksDQoNClVwZGF0ZWQgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSByZXNwb25zZXMgdG8gdGhlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHNvIGZh ciBmcm9tIEJhcnJ5LCBTdGVwaGVuLA0KQWx2YXJvIGFuZCBCZW4uICBTdGlsbCBsb29raW5nIHRv IHJlc29sdmUgdGhlIERpc2N1c3MgZnJvbSBNYXJ0aW7igKYNCg0KQ29tbWVudHMgZXRjLiB3ZWxj b21lIGFzIGFsd2F5cy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQotTmlrDQoNCi1bQ2hhcnRlciBmb3IgV29ya2lu ZyBHcm91cF0tDQoNClRoZSBhaW0gb2YgRERvUyBPcGVuIFRocmVhdCBTaWduYWxpbmcgKERPVFMp IGlzIHRvIGRldmVsb3AgYSBzdGFuZGFyZHMNCmJhc2VkIGFwcHJvYWNoIGZvciB0aGUgcmVhbHRp bWUgc2lnbmFsaW5nIG9mIEREb1MgcmVsYXRlZCB0ZWxlbWV0cnkgYW5kDQp0aHJlYXQgaGFuZGxp bmcgcmVxdWVzdHMgYW5kIGRhdGEgYmV0d2VlbiBlbGVtZW50cyBjb25jZXJuZWQgd2l0aCBERG9T DQphdHRhY2sgZGV0ZWN0aW9uLCBjbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiwgdHJhY2ViYWNrIGFuZCBtaXRpZ2F0 aW9uLg0KDQpUaGUgZWxlbWVudHMgbWF5IGJlIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBhczoNCiogT24tcHJlbWlzZSBE RG9TIG1pdGlnYXRpb24gcGxhdGZvcm1zDQoqIFNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXIgRERvUyBtaXRpZ2F0 aW9uIHBsYXRmb3Jtcw0KKiBPdGhlciBuZXR3b3JrIGVsZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBzZXJ2aWNlcyB3aXRo IHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIGFuYWx5emUgYW5kL29yDQppbmZsdWVuY2UgbmV0d29yayB0cmFmZmlj DQoNCkVsZW1lbnRzIG1heSBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiBERG9TIGRldGVjdGlvbiwgY2xhc3NpZmlj YXRpb24sIHRyYWNlYmFjayBhbmQNCm1pdGlnYXRpb24gaW5kaXZpZHVhbGx5IG9yIHdpdGhpbiB0 aGUgY29udGV4dCBvZiBhIGxhcmdlciBjb2xsYWJvcmF0aXZlDQpzeXN0ZW0uDQoNClRoZXNlIGVs ZW1lbnRzIG1heSBiZSBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW5nIGludGVyLWRvbWFpbiBvciBpbnRyYS1kb21haW4g b3Zlcg0KbGlua3MgdGhhdCBtYXkgYmUgY29uZ2VzdGVkIGJ5IGF0dGFjayB0cmFmZmljIHJlc3Vs dGluZyBpbiBob3N0aWxlDQpjb25kaXRpb25zIGZvciBjb25uZWN0aW9uIG9yaWVudGVkIGFwcHJv YWNoZXMgYW5kIG1vcmUgZ2VuZXJhbGl6ZWQNCnNpZ25hbGluZyBhbmQgdGVsZW1ldHJ5IHNvbHV0 aW9ucy4gIFJvYnVzdG5lc3MgdW5kZXIgdGhlc2UgY29uZGl0aW9ucyBpcw0KcGFyYW1vdW50IHdo aWxlIGVuc3VyaW5nIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHJlZ2FyZCBmb3IgYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24sDQphdXRo b3JpemF0aW9uLCBwcml2YWN5IGFuZCBkYXRhIGludGVncml0eS4gIEVsZW1lbnRzIG1heSBiZSBk ZXBsb3llZCBhcw0KcGFydCBvZiBhIHdpZGVyIHN0cmF0ZWd5IGluY29ycG9yYXRpbmcgbXVsdGlw bGUgcG9pbnRzIG9mIEREb1MgZGV0ZWN0aW9uLA0KY2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb24sIHRyYWNlYmFjayBh bmQgbWl0aWdhdGlvbiwgYm90aCBvbiBwcmVtaXNlIG9yIHNlcnZpY2UNCnByb3ZpZGVyIGJhc2Vk LiAgU2hvdWxkIGNoYW5naW5nIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgbmVjZXNzaXRhdGUgYWx0ZXJpbmcgdGhlDQpz cGVjaWZpY3Mgb2YgbWl0aWdhdGlvbiBhY3Rpb25zIGFuZC9vciB0aGUgdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWwgc2Nv cGUgb2YgbWl0aWdhdGlvbg0KY292ZXJhZ2UsIHRpbWVseSBhbmQgZWZmZWN0aXZlIHNpZ25hbGlu ZyBvZiB0ZWxlbWV0cnkgYW5kIGN1cnJlbnQgdGhyZWF0DQpzdGF0dXMgdG8gYWxsIGVsZW1lbnRz IGludm9sdmVkIGluIHRoZSBtaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGlzIGVzc2VudGlhbC4gIEZlZWRiYWNrDQpiZXR3 ZWVuIHBhcnRpY2lwYXRpbmcgZWxlbWVudHMgaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQgZm9yIGluY3JlYXNlZCBhd2Fy ZW5lc3MNCnN1cHBvcnRpbmcgZWZmZWN0aXZlIGRlY2lzaW9uIG1ha2luZy4NCg0KVGhlIFdHIHdp bGwsIHdoZXJlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlLCByZXVzZSBvciBleHRlbmQgZXhpc3Rpbmcgc3RhbmRhcmQN CnByb3RvY29scyBhbmQgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyAoZm9yIGV4YW1wbGUsIElQRklYIGFuZCBpdHMgYXNz b2NpYXRlZCB0ZW1wbGF0aW5nDQphbmQgZXh0ZW5zaW9uIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMpLiAgQW55IG1vZGlm aWNhdGlvbiBvZiBvciBleHRlbnNpb24gdG8gZXhpc3RpbmcNCnByb3RvY29scyBtdXN0IGJlIGlu IGNsb3NlIGNvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiB3aXRoIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3Vwcw0KcmVzcG9uc2libGUg Zm9yIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBiZWluZyBtb2RpZmllZCwgYW5kIG1heSBiZSBkb25lIGluIHRoaXMN CndvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgYWZ0ZXIgYWdyZWVtZW50IHdpdGggYWxsIHRoZSByZWxldmFudCBXR3Mg YW5kIHJlc3BvbnNpYmxlDQpBcmVhIERpcmVjdG9ycy4gIFRoZSBXRyBtYXkgY29vcmRpbmF0ZSBv biBhIHNpdHVhdGlvbmFsbHkgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUNCmJhc2lzIHdpdGggb3RoZXIgd29ya2luZyBn cm91cHMgYW5kIGluaXRpYXRpdmVzIHdoaWNoIGNvbXBsaW1lbnQgdGhlIERPVFMNCmVmZm9ydCBl LmcuIE0zQUFXRywgU0FDTSwgTUlMRSwgU1VQQSwgSTJOU0YgZXQuIGFsLg0KDQpUaGUgY2hhcnRl ciBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBpcyB0byBwcm9kdWNlIG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIHN0YW5kYXJk cyB0cmFjaw0Kc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbnMgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBmb3IgdGhpcyBvcGVuIHNpZ25hbGlu ZyBpbiB0aGUgRERvUyBwcm9ibGVtDQpzcGFjZS4gIFdoaWxlIHRoZSByZXN1bHRpbmcgc3RhbmRh cmRzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBkZXNpZ25lZCBzbyB0aGV5IGFwcGx5IHRvDQpuZXR3b3JrIHNlY3VyaXR5 IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBiZXlvbmQgdGhlIEREb1MgcHJvYmxlbSBzcGFjZSwgdGhpcyB3b3JraW5n DQpncm91cCB3aWxsIGZvY3VzIG9uIHNpZ25hbGluZyBhbmQgY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIG1lY2hhbmlz bXMgZGlyZWN0bHkgcmVsYXRlZA0KdG8gRERvUyBhdHRhY2sgZGV0ZWN0aW9uLCBjbGFzc2lmaWNh dGlvbiwgdHJhY2ViYWNrIGFuZCBtaXRpZ2F0aW9uLA0KaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGluZyB0aGUgZ2VuZXJh bCBwcmluaWNpcGxlcyBhcnRpY3VsYXRlZCBpbiBSRkM1MjE4DQo8aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL3JmYzUyMTg+LiAgRm9jdXNpbmcgdGhlIFdHIGVmZm9ydHMgb24gRERvUyBpcw0K aW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gbWVldCB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5J3MgZGVzaXJlIGZvciBhIGRlcGxveWFibGUg c29sdXRpb24gaW4gdGhlDQpuZWFyIHRlcm0uICBUaGUgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbihzKSBwcm9kdWNl ZCBieSB0aGUgV0cgd2lsbCBpbmNsdWRlIGENCnN0YW5kYXJkIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBmb3IgYXV0aGVu dGljYXRpb24gYW5kIGF1dGhvcml6YXRpb24sIGRhdGEgaW50ZWdyaXR5LA0KYW5kIHByb3ZpZGlu ZyBmb3IgcHJpdmFjeSBpbiBvcGVyYXRpb24sIHdpdGggcHJpdmFjeS1mcmllbmRseSBjaG9pY2Vz DQpiZWluZyB0aGUgZGVmYXVsdCBpbiBhbGwgY2FzZXMuDQoNClRoZSBXRyB3aWxsIHByb2R1Y2Ug dGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBkZWxpdmVyYWJsZXMgYW5kIG1pbGVzdG9uZXM6DQoNCiogRG9jdW1lbnQg b3IgRG9jdW1lbnRzIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gc3BhY2UsIHVzZSBjYXNlcywgcHJv dG9jb2wNCnJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBhbmQgb3RoZXIgcXVhbGlmeWluZyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhcyB0 aGUgV0cgc2VlcyBmaXQuDQoqIERvY3VtZW50IG9yIERvY3VtZW50cyBzcGVjaWZ5aW5nIHByb3Rv Y29scyBhbmQgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCBkYXRhIG1vZGVscyB0bw0KYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgc3RhdGVkIGdv YWxzIG9mIHRoZSBXRy4NCg0KKiBOb3YtMjAxNTogV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgZm9yIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50 cy9Vc2UgQ2FzZXMgKGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwpDQoqIE1hci0yMDE2OiBXRyBkb2N1bWVudCBmb3Ig VHJhbnNwb3J0IChwcm9wb3NlZCBzdGFuZGFyZCkNCiogQXByLTIwMTY6IFdHIGRvY3VtZW50IGZv ciBEYXRhIE1vZGVsIChwcm9wb3NlZCBzdGFuZGFyZCkNCg0KKiBGZWItMjAxNjogUmVxdWlyZW1l bnRzL1VzZSBDYXNlcyBkcmFmdCB0byBJRVNHDQoqIE1heS0yMDE2OiBUcmFuc3BvcnQgZHJhZnQg dG8gSUVTRw0KKiBKdW4tMjAxNjogRGF0YSBNb2RlbCBkcmFmdCB0byBJRVNHDQoNCiogUGVyaW9k aWNhbGx5IHJlLWV4YW1pbmUgbWlsZXN0b25lcyAoM3ggbW9udGggaW50ZXJ2YWxzKQ0KDQoNCg== From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:39:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3971A03E3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 d0Rtw7U8nQs8 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B68B01B2C21 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wifx6 with SMTP id x6so59069694wif.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KaCz3W863AaIReO/bKdJkp6nE6D1Jo3FLmC1PeqZGMQ=; b=M3NpGWDlmHUF5h8sl7RtSPPHJGZqJcBnYbQ9L0Z8GKyRifuaodZBdwNvtX20+E0TWU FNGzwXRW3/8/OX+dzjbbxyqloWFC17JDjplzQlcsxdw1dz59Pa66U59vX81Kvi0EihcR 5bHYY6gecJ1h39g0vWLGY6Dw4txOs9eGQqXORyZx53cJu/vJFjfflYPuM6Njrw4JFzYo WRHb/vOac7RzrTbaBRrLlBfVu5sUhTHBIapPXWWvaHsIP6FOSXylPRLUq8wJUw9uh7AP OGgYPzwHvDppAq93V6K8/lCaJD5aRYJDuybVdUWN0lBwgH1NlWXxlbmRoB8oDR/z5IA/ CfgQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.222.230 with SMTP id qp6mr10184359wjc.70.1433972342468; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:39:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:39:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Kathleen Moriarty To: "Teague, Nik" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bad817364c051830b4fd Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - updated in regard to ballot comments X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:39:11 -0000 --001a11c3bad817364c051830b4fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nik, Thank you! Can you call out what changed? OLD: NEW: is appreciated! This should help ensure there is agreement on the changes as well. Best regards, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Teague, Nik wrote: > Hi, > > Updated to include responses to the comments so far from Barry, Stephen, > Alvaro and Ben. Still looking to resolve the Discuss from Martin=E2=80= =A6 > > Comments etc. welcome as always. > > Thanks, > > -Nik > > -[Charter for Working Group]- > > The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards > based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and > threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS > attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation. > > The elements may be described as: > * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms > * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms > * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or > influence network traffic > > Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and > mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative > system. > > These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over > links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile > conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized > signaling and telemetry solutions. Robustness under these conditions is > paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, > authorization, privacy and data integrity. Elements may be deployed as > part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, > classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service > provider based. Should changing conditions necessitate altering the > specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigatio= n > coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat > status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential. Feedback > between participating elements is required for increased awareness > supporting effective decision making. > > The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard > protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templatin= g > and extension mechanisms). Any modification of or extension to existing > protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups > responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this > working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible > Area Directors. The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate > basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS > effort e.g. M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al. > > The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards trac= k > specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem > space. While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to > network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working > group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly relate= d > to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, > incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218 > . Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS i= s > intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the > near term. The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a > standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, > and providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices > being the default in all cases. > > The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones: > > * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol > requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit. > * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models t= o > address the stated goals of the WG. > > * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational) > * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard) > * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard) > > * Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG > * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG > * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG > > * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals) > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > --=20 Best regards, Kathleen --001a11c3bad817364c051830b4fd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Nik,

Thank you!=C2=A0 Can you call o= ut what changed? =C2=A0
OLD:
NEW:

<= div>is appreciated!=C2=A0 This should help ensure there is agreement on the= changes as well.

Best regards,

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at = 5:25 PM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi,

Updated to include responses to the comments so far from Barry, Stephen, Alvaro and Ben.=C2=A0 Still looking to resolve the Discuss from Martin=E2= =80=A6

Comments etc. welcome as always.

Thanks,

-Nik

-[Charter for Working Group]-

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative
system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions.=C2=A0 Robustness under these conditions = is
paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication,
authorization, privacy and data integrity.=C2=A0 Elements may be deployed a= s
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service
provider based.=C2=A0 Should changing conditions necessitate altering the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation<= br> coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential.=C2=A0 Feedb= ack
between participating elements is required for increased awareness
supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating<= br> and extension mechanisms).=C2=A0 Any modification of or extension to existi= ng
protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups
responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this
working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible
Area Directors.=C2=A0 The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate<= br> basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS effort e.g. M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track<= br> specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem
space.=C2=A0 While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply= to
network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related<= br> to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation,
incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218
<https= ://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5218>.=C2=A0 Focusing the WG efforts on DD= oS is
intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in th= e
near term.=C2=A0 The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices
being the default in all cases.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to<= br> address the stated goals of the WG.

* Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational)
* Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard)
* Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard)

* Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG
* May-2016: Transport draft to IESG
* Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG

* Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals)


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots



--

Best regards,
Kath= leen
--001a11c3bad817364c051830b4fd-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:46:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12DF1A0383 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 Hbgofof2SN3o for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f99.google.com (mail-qg0-f99.google.com [209.85.192.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 890251A07BD for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdq107 with SMTP id q107so3640878qgd.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language:user-agent:content-type :content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4Sb1DzmYkw+3fbnJhh87QKo0vrbTGjUt03yTzqmIFTo=; b=AxvcHTv7hf9sNgr16rQ2TZIRJV9zVxQkySDCcAdodtyCtlcwbXudhqic/avjlQrRlw 9VEOwKPK61SXBflbwoZ1jECdNhn1G/MB6ejx5jiPPKuYVva+JMDR9VrTmcMQM5KH8b7C RyvWSojNYWfGYnWZUidRPtCrRSthlT6q5W7KX9+AwAE9JXkBPcei4gUbV3jvtcKo/7cT gvC95EQi5zxH3gTvpibr/IncqFiUW/6sWpnMNdKqsQnQAMUUmL7NyOO8pppErgKb4JjE SpBnzKhdizuD1Hdt8dpan64G6matFRfvX3b1lmJfW1/5zMJCUdoZ6TJ9k9/1nlmEeAuz 9K3A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlW+3AUxBXaX5GSaGgcIrN+8UeU9J6WaEV9zPajtIorfD+E6ozsDJAQMD8qMGpzqnvLN1BQxFzBNEDtMgcJykeZx5OklA== X-Received: by 10.55.33.209 with SMTP id f78mr11476005qki.38.1433972777849; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lx8sm2973104qcb.2.2015.06.10.14.46.17 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5ALkHOO024195 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:46:17 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:46:16 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: "Teague, Nik" , "dots@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - updated in regard to ballot comments Thread-Index: AQHQo8bg7uU2i+x510aY9pRO7pCBZQ== Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:46:15 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <1EC8524A9B34794D85B088457D09DDA0@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - updated in regard to ballot comments X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:46:21 -0000 U3VtbWFyeSBvZiB1cGRhdGVzIDopDQoNClN0ZXBoZW4ncyBhbmQgQmVu4oCZcyBjb21tZW50cyBy ZSBwcml2YWN5LWZyaWVuZGx5IGNob2ljZXMgYXMgYSBkZWZhdWx0Og0KDQpPTEQ6DQpUaGUgc3Bl Y2lmaWNhdGlvbihzKSBwcm9kdWNlZCBieSB0aGUgV0cgd2lsbCBpbmNsdWRlIGENCnN0YW5kYXJk IG1lY2hhbmlzbSBmb3IgYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIGF1dGhvcml6YXRpb24sIGRhdGEgaW50 ZWdyaXR5LA0KYW5kIHByb3ZpZGluZyBmb3IgcHJpdmFjeSBpbiBvcGVyYXRpb24uDQoNCg0KTkVX Og0KVGhlIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24ocykgcHJvZHVjZWQgYnkgdGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgaW5jbHVkZSBh IHN0YW5kYXJkIG1lY2hhbmlzbQ0KZm9yIGF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBhdXRob3JpemF0aW9u LCBkYXRhIGludGVncml0eSwgYW5kIHByb3ZpZGluZyBmb3INCnByaXZhY3kgaW4gb3BlcmF0aW9u LCB3aXRoIHByaXZhY3ktZnJpZW5kbHkgY2hvaWNlcyBiZWluZyB0aGUgZGVmYXVsdCBpbg0KYWxs IGNhc2VzLg0KDQpBbHZhcm/igJlzIGNvbW1lbnQgcmUgV0cgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkgZm9yIGFu eSBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IHN0YW5kYXJkaXNhdGlvbg0KYW5kIGFsc28gVG9iaWFz4oCZcyB1cGRhdGUg dG8gdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIHZlcmJhZ2U6DQoNCk9MRDoNClRoZSBXRyB3aWxsLCB3aGVyZSBhcHBy b3ByaWF0ZSwgcmV1c2Ugb3IgZXh0ZW5kIGV4aXN0aW5nIHN0YW5kYXJkDQpwcm90b2NvbHMgYW5k IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgKGZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBJUEZJWCBhbmQgaXRzIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgdGVtcGxh dGluZw0KYW5kIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBtZWNoYW5pc21zKS4NCg0KDQpORVc6DQpUaGUgV0cgd2lsbCwg d2hlcmUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUsIHJldXNlIG9yIGV4dGVuZCBleGlzdGluZyBzdGFuZGFyZA0KcHJv dG9jb2xzIGFuZCBtZWNoYW5pc21zIChmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgSVBGSVggYW5kIGl0cyBhc3NvY2lh dGVkIHRlbXBsYXRpbmcNCmFuZCBleHRlbnNpb24gbWVjaGFuaXNtcykuICBBbnkgbW9kaWZpY2F0 aW9uIG9mIG9yIGV4dGVuc2lvbiB0byBleGlzdGluZw0KcHJvdG9jb2xzIG11c3QgYmUgaW4gY2xv c2UgY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIHdpdGggdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBzDQpyZXNwb25zaWJsZSBmb3Ig dGhlIHByb3RvY29sIGJlaW5nIG1vZGlmaWVkLCBhbmQgbWF5IGJlIGRvbmUgaW4gdGhpcw0Kd29y a2luZyBncm91cCBhZnRlciBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgd2l0aCBhbGwgdGhlIHJlbGV2YW50IFdHcyBhbmQg cmVzcG9uc2libGUNCkFyZWEgRGlyZWN0b3JzLg0KDQpCYXJyeeKAmXMgY29tbWVudCByZSBNM0FB V0cgY29sbGFib3JhdGlvbjoNCg0KT0xEOg0KVGhlIFdHIG1heSBjb29yZGluYXRlIG9uIGEgc2l0 dWF0aW9uYWxseQ0KYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgYmFzaXMgd2l0aCBvdGhlciB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwcyBh bmQgaW5pdGlhdGl2ZXMgd2hpY2gNCmNvbXBsaW1lbnQgdGhlIERPVFMgZWZmb3J0IGUuZy4gU0FD TSwgTUlMRSwgU1VQQSwgSTJOU0YgZXQuIEFsLg0KDQoNCk5FVzoNClRoZSBXRyBtYXkgY29vcmRp bmF0ZSBvbiBhIHNpdHVhdGlvbmFsbHkgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgYmFzaXMgd2l0aCBvdGhlcg0Kd29y a2luZyBncm91cHMgYW5kIGluaXRpYXRpdmVzIHdoaWNoIGNvbXBsaW1lbnQgdGhlIERPVFMgZWZm b3J0IGUuZy4NCk0zQUFXRywgU0FDTSwgTUlMRSwgU1VQQSwgSTJOU0YgZXQuIEFsLg0KDQpUaGFu a3MsDQoNCi1OaWsNCg0KT24gMTAvMDYvMjAxNSAyMjoyNSwgIlRlYWd1ZSwgTmlrIiA8bnRlYWd1 ZUB2ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPi1bQ2hhcnRlciBmb3IgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cF0t DQo+DQo+VGhlIGFpbSBvZiBERG9TIE9wZW4gVGhyZWF0IFNpZ25hbGluZyAoRE9UUykgaXMgdG8g ZGV2ZWxvcCBhIHN0YW5kYXJkcw0KPmJhc2VkIGFwcHJvYWNoIGZvciB0aGUgcmVhbHRpbWUgc2ln bmFsaW5nIG9mIEREb1MgcmVsYXRlZCB0ZWxlbWV0cnkgYW5kDQo+dGhyZWF0IGhhbmRsaW5nIHJl cXVlc3RzIGFuZCBkYXRhIGJldHdlZW4gZWxlbWVudHMgY29uY2VybmVkIHdpdGggRERvUw0KPmF0 dGFjayBkZXRlY3Rpb24sIGNsYXNzaWZpY2F0aW9uLCB0cmFjZWJhY2sgYW5kIG1pdGlnYXRpb24u DQo+DQo+VGhlIGVsZW1lbnRzIG1heSBiZSBkZXNjcmliZWQgYXM6DQo+KiBPbi1wcmVtaXNlIERE b1MgbWl0aWdhdGlvbiBwbGF0Zm9ybXMNCj4qIFNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXIgRERvUyBtaXRpZ2F0 aW9uIHBsYXRmb3Jtcw0KPiogT3RoZXIgbmV0d29yayBlbGVtZW50cyBhbmQgc2VydmljZXMgd2l0 aCB0aGUgYWJpbGl0eSB0byBhbmFseXplIGFuZC9vcg0KPmluZmx1ZW5jZSBuZXR3b3JrIHRyYWZm aWMNCj4NCj5FbGVtZW50cyBtYXkgcGFydGljaXBhdGUgaW4gRERvUyBkZXRlY3Rpb24sIGNsYXNz aWZpY2F0aW9uLCB0cmFjZWJhY2sgYW5kDQo+bWl0aWdhdGlvbiBpbmRpdmlkdWFsbHkgb3Igd2l0 aGluIHRoZSBjb250ZXh0IG9mIGEgbGFyZ2VyIGNvbGxhYm9yYXRpdmUNCj5zeXN0ZW0uDQo+DQo+ VGhlc2UgZWxlbWVudHMgbWF5IGJlIGNvbW11bmljYXRpbmcgaW50ZXItZG9tYWluIG9yIGludHJh LWRvbWFpbiBvdmVyDQo+bGlua3MgdGhhdCBtYXkgYmUgY29uZ2VzdGVkIGJ5IGF0dGFjayB0cmFm ZmljIHJlc3VsdGluZyBpbiBob3N0aWxlDQo+Y29uZGl0aW9ucyBmb3IgY29ubmVjdGlvbiBvcmll bnRlZCBhcHByb2FjaGVzIGFuZCBtb3JlIGdlbmVyYWxpemVkDQo+c2lnbmFsaW5nIGFuZCB0ZWxl bWV0cnkgc29sdXRpb25zLiAgUm9idXN0bmVzcyB1bmRlciB0aGVzZSBjb25kaXRpb25zIGlzDQo+ cGFyYW1vdW50IHdoaWxlIGVuc3VyaW5nIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHJlZ2FyZCBmb3IgYXV0aGVudGlj YXRpb24sDQo+YXV0aG9yaXphdGlvbiwgcHJpdmFjeSBhbmQgZGF0YSBpbnRlZ3JpdHkuICBFbGVt ZW50cyBtYXkgYmUgZGVwbG95ZWQgYXMNCj5wYXJ0IG9mIGEgd2lkZXIgc3RyYXRlZ3kgaW5jb3Jw b3JhdGluZyBtdWx0aXBsZSBwb2ludHMgb2YgRERvUyBkZXRlY3Rpb24sDQo+Y2xhc3NpZmljYXRp b24sIHRyYWNlYmFjayBhbmQgbWl0aWdhdGlvbiwgYm90aCBvbiBwcmVtaXNlIG9yIHNlcnZpY2UN Cj5wcm92aWRlciBiYXNlZC4gIFNob3VsZCBjaGFuZ2luZyBjb25kaXRpb25zIG5lY2Vzc2l0YXRl IGFsdGVyaW5nIHRoZQ0KPnNwZWNpZmljcyBvZiBtaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGFjdGlvbnMgYW5kL29yIHRo ZSB0b3BvbG9naWNhbCBzY29wZSBvZiBtaXRpZ2F0aW9uDQo+Y292ZXJhZ2UsIHRpbWVseSBhbmQg ZWZmZWN0aXZlIHNpZ25hbGluZyBvZiB0ZWxlbWV0cnkgYW5kIGN1cnJlbnQgdGhyZWF0DQo+c3Rh dHVzIHRvIGFsbCBlbGVtZW50cyBpbnZvbHZlZCBpbiB0aGUgbWl0aWdhdGlvbiBpcyBlc3NlbnRp YWwuICBGZWVkYmFjaw0KPmJldHdlZW4gcGFydGljaXBhdGluZyBlbGVtZW50cyBpcyByZXF1aXJl ZCBmb3IgaW5jcmVhc2VkIGF3YXJlbmVzcw0KPnN1cHBvcnRpbmcgZWZmZWN0aXZlIGRlY2lzaW9u IG1ha2luZy4NCj4NCj5UaGUgV0cgd2lsbCwgd2hlcmUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUsIHJldXNlIG9yIGV4 dGVuZCBleGlzdGluZyBzdGFuZGFyZA0KPnByb3RvY29scyBhbmQgbWVjaGFuaXNtcyAoZm9yIGV4 YW1wbGUsIElQRklYIGFuZCBpdHMgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCB0ZW1wbGF0aW5nDQo+YW5kIGV4dGVuc2lv biBtZWNoYW5pc21zKS4gIEFueSBtb2RpZmljYXRpb24gb2Ygb3IgZXh0ZW5zaW9uIHRvIGV4aXN0 aW5nDQo+cHJvdG9jb2xzIG11c3QgYmUgaW4gY2xvc2UgY29vcmRpbmF0aW9uIHdpdGggdGhlIHdv cmtpbmcgZ3JvdXBzDQo+cmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBiZWluZyBtb2RpZmll ZCwgYW5kIG1heSBiZSBkb25lIGluIHRoaXMNCj53b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGFmdGVyIGFncmVlbWVu dCB3aXRoIGFsbCB0aGUgcmVsZXZhbnQgV0dzIGFuZCByZXNwb25zaWJsZQ0KPkFyZWEgRGlyZWN0 b3JzLiAgVGhlIFdHIG1heSBjb29yZGluYXRlIG9uIGEgc2l0dWF0aW9uYWxseSBhcHByb3ByaWF0 ZQ0KPmJhc2lzIHdpdGggb3RoZXIgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgYW5kIGluaXRpYXRpdmVzIHdoaWNo IGNvbXBsaW1lbnQgdGhlIERPVFMNCj5lZmZvcnQgZS5nLiBNM0FBV0csIFNBQ00sIE1JTEUsIFNV UEEsIEkyTlNGIGV0LiBhbC4NCj4NCj5UaGUgY2hhcnRlciBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBp cyB0byBwcm9kdWNlIG9uZSBvciBtb3JlIHN0YW5kYXJkcyB0cmFjaw0KPnNwZWNpZmljYXRpb25z IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgZm9yIHRoaXMgb3BlbiBzaWduYWxpbmcgaW4gdGhlIEREb1MgcHJvYmxlbQ0K PnNwYWNlLiAgV2hpbGUgdGhlIHJlc3VsdGluZyBzdGFuZGFyZHMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGRlc2lnbmVk IHNvIHRoZXkgYXBwbHkgdG8NCj5uZXR3b3JrIHNlY3VyaXR5IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBiZXlvbmQg dGhlIEREb1MgcHJvYmxlbSBzcGFjZSwgdGhpcyB3b3JraW5nDQo+Z3JvdXAgd2lsbCBmb2N1cyBv biBzaWduYWxpbmcgYW5kIGNvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGRpcmVjdGx5IHJlbGF0ZWQN Cj50byBERG9TIGF0dGFjayBkZXRlY3Rpb24sIGNsYXNzaWZpY2F0aW9uLCB0cmFjZWJhY2sgYW5k IG1pdGlnYXRpb24sDQo+aW5jb3Jwb3JhdGluZyB0aGUgZ2VuZXJhbCBwcmluaWNpcGxlcyBhcnRp Y3VsYXRlZCBpbiBSRkM1MjE4DQo+PGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmM1MjE4 Pi4gIEZvY3VzaW5nIHRoZSBXRyBlZmZvcnRzIG9uIEREb1MgaXMNCj5pbnRlbmRlZCB0byBtZWV0 IHRoZSBjb21tdW5pdHkncyBkZXNpcmUgZm9yIGEgZGVwbG95YWJsZSBzb2x1dGlvbiBpbiB0aGUN Cj5uZWFyIHRlcm0uICBUaGUgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbihzKSBwcm9kdWNlZCBieSB0aGUgV0cgd2ls bCBpbmNsdWRlIGENCj5zdGFuZGFyZCBtZWNoYW5pc20gZm9yIGF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBh dXRob3JpemF0aW9uLCBkYXRhIGludGVncml0eSwNCj5hbmQgcHJvdmlkaW5nIGZvciBwcml2YWN5 IGluIG9wZXJhdGlvbiwgd2l0aCBwcml2YWN5LWZyaWVuZGx5IGNob2ljZXMNCj5iZWluZyB0aGUg ZGVmYXVsdCBpbiBhbGwgY2FzZXMuDQo+DQo+VGhlIFdHIHdpbGwgcHJvZHVjZSB0aGUgZm9sbG93 aW5nIGRlbGl2ZXJhYmxlcyBhbmQgbWlsZXN0b25lczoNCj4NCj4qIERvY3VtZW50IG9yIERvY3Vt ZW50cyBkZXNjcmliaW5nIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIHNwYWNlLCB1c2UgY2FzZXMsIHByb3RvY29sDQo+ cmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBvdGhlciBxdWFsaWZ5aW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFzIHRoZSBXRyBz ZWVzIGZpdC4NCj4qIERvY3VtZW50IG9yIERvY3VtZW50cyBzcGVjaWZ5aW5nIHByb3RvY29scyBh bmQgYXNzb2NpYXRlZCBkYXRhIG1vZGVscyB0bw0KPmFkZHJlc3MgdGhlIHN0YXRlZCBnb2FscyBv ZiB0aGUgV0cuDQo+DQo+KiBOb3YtMjAxNTogV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgZm9yIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cy9V c2UgQ2FzZXMgKGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwpDQo+KiBNYXItMjAxNjogV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgZm9yIFRy YW5zcG9ydCAocHJvcG9zZWQgc3RhbmRhcmQpDQo+KiBBcHItMjAxNjogV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgZm9y IERhdGEgTW9kZWwgKHByb3Bvc2VkIHN0YW5kYXJkKQ0KPg0KPiogRmViLTIwMTY6IFJlcXVpcmVt ZW50cy9Vc2UgQ2FzZXMgZHJhZnQgdG8gSUVTRw0KPiogTWF5LTIwMTY6IFRyYW5zcG9ydCBkcmFm dCB0byBJRVNHDQo+KiBKdW4tMjAxNjogRGF0YSBNb2RlbCBkcmFmdCB0byBJRVNHDQo+DQo+KiBQ ZXJpb2RpY2FsbHkgcmUtZXhhbWluZSBtaWxlc3RvbmVzICgzeCBtb250aCBpbnRlcnZhbHMpDQo+ DQo+DQo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj5E b3RzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPkRvdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9t YWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2RvdHMNCg0K From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:46:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3CF1A01EA; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:44:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 n-x0gSaEQLtK; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DAD11A0383; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:44:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3779; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1433972644; x=1435182244; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=9tqgGPS+o4RM7wzqYPVqwqbVJu2QFeI2FzL8UF7lBmM=; b=WfPU1raOcA21hS372uCkAz9E8LiDQTDlB4ga0CHys54Ev1i+IP8h4jEn mJr26oymKpSTs7zQKxaDNydPS5V2G63y2Zoa47HShGoPgWMen66fan+1+ vbXtlW7Cqt6zp8Khrn2A6GS1MViHgOuiOrURJaUudyiusP0a0y9+axnMT A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AJBQADr3hV/5JdJa1cgkVLgTMGvhKHWwKBQDoSAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDeRACAQgEOwcyFBECBAENBYgu0ksBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXi0OFBgeELQEEkHuCT4s2l3skYoFZgT1vgUaBAQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,589,1427760000"; d="scan'208,217";a="158296312" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2015 21:44:03 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5ALi3Vb005238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:44:03 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.125]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:44:03 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: Tobias Gondrom , "iesg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQogeur2Za/H2F3kea0AswgF5SSp2mk2CA///GZAA= Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:44:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578A7A7.80602@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: <5578A7A7.80602@gondrom.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D19E27C5B6510aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:40 -0700 Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:44:08 -0000 --_000_D19E27C5B6510aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" > wrote: Tobias: Hi! So my proposal would be: "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close co= ordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being modif= ied, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all the rel= evant WGs and responsible Area Directors." That works for me. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D19E27C5B6510aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <26E041FC3E4FC645879D81778B91BEA0@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:

Tobias:

Hi!

So my proposal would be: 

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close coordi= nation with the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified,= and may be done in this working group after agreement with all the relevan= t WGs and responsible Area Directors."

That works for me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D19E27C5B6510aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:54:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CD71A1F00; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 llXNdv5exNDG; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 235771A1AA2; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (x5ce39938.dyn.telefonica.de [92.227.153.56]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C671634A5; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:54:23 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=Rm94kGE5UUiJRjN/kQtsgWex+Vc2d8AbihsI4a5DUyUqgxBpybvTpLcTZX81U9xEwliXTLMPwK6BHROyq+eCdEc9QnyMZEzod8YHH+k2YL9nZ1t7cnmRNJCzXXIWSvGu8BrZE+umo/Had3lD51Kyz5H1W9OBAD04TDqzuHuu4FI=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <5578B20F.7050607@gondrom.org> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:54:23 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aretana@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org References: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578A7A7.80602@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080406060906080700070304" Archived-At: Cc: nteague@verisign.com, dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:54:26 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080406060906080700070304 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Nik, could you please update the text according to this text agreed by Alvaro, not the previous one. Thanks, Tobias On 10/06/15 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" > wrote: > > Tobias: > > Hi! > > So my proposal would be: > > "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in > close coordination with the working groups responsible for the > protocol being modified, and may be done in this working group > after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible Area > Directors." > > > That works for me. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots --------------080406060906080700070304 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Nik,
could you please update the text according to this text agreed by Alvaro, not the previous one.
Thanks, Tobias


On 10/06/15 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:

Tobias:

Hi!

So my proposal would be: 

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors."

That works for me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

--------------080406060906080700070304-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 14:57:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758711B2C37 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:57:51 -0700 (PDT) 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] autolearn=ham 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 j1irIPxlqZEE for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-f100.google.com (mail-qg0-f100.google.com [209.85.192.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43D291B2C31 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so3652088qgd.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8r2ZIMo6RGoXSNzprR8EhJB932Dxpz104EFH7Y+Q9gs=; b=Be71BLuBJ9XRj3mAFgaTA7GttuFguu1ntGls+AcwHbcuc8hzwEKqmjoQysgg+YBb5g +PYnppELZVlGrseCwgdGSI88m+E4wbq0IUMUypXAHiH7oRjkvcPn/iEEO5HsxRr1njTy iShNneesJUCkFYzu+sVt9+7RHQcZ6ZLc+KBAk91rbK8AodIDm71A/cAyjvaJV9izRSj4 i7FPB5VyUGwkDx4fDf5jKrvbL5tsdKtuSwZGva0c3dbim+r0y/ezthivyf675oxNEHAf 3IfLku6sxMkCQqUsedqwFSAngd6XYDSlcGzkB35iXlO1yH37y0U7fmqfDRk1smX8hMHJ y5Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkXNt5tsDsrLuyA6SZvp9ZPnMfIGXnSYjiKx+Xa3iGcsWO8dXLh3u0aZ0w94YYDUgfabYdvy8smCYltbmZLNpQVaZg61g== X-Received: by 10.140.144.73 with SMTP id 70mr7228479qhq.91.1433973468511; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hx6sm2987936qcb.1.2015.06.10.14.57.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5ALvlKa025485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:57:47 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:57:47 -0400 From: "Teague, Nik" To: Tobias Gondrom , "aretana@cisco.com" , "iesg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHQoghZ5VDVnfbVf0mMAjmB11BZgp2mgpuAgAAJgwCAAALlgIAAEbUA Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:57:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578A7A7.80602@gondrom.org> <5578B20F.7050607@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: <5578B20F.7050607@gondrom.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "dots@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:57:51 -0000 VG9iaWFzIGhpLA0KDQpJIGhhdmUgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBpbiB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciB1cGRhdGUg bm93Og0KDQoiQW55IG1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBvciBleHRlbnNpb24gdG8gZXhpc3RpbmcgcHJv dG9jb2xzIG11c3QgYmUgaW4gY2xvc2UNCmNvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiB3aXRoIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdy b3VwcyByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBmb3IgdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIGJlaW5nDQptb2RpZmllZCwgYW5kIG1h eSBiZSBkb25lIGluIHRoaXMgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBhZnRlciBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgd2l0aCBhbGwN CnRoZSByZWxldmFudCBXR3MgYW5kIHJlc3BvbnNpYmxlIEFyZWEgRGlyZWN0b3JzLuKAnQ0KDQpU aGFua3MsDQoNCi1OaWsNCg0KT24gMTAvMDYvMjAxNSAyMjo1NCwgIlRvYmlhcyBHb25kcm9tIiA8 dG9iaWFzLmdvbmRyb21AZ29uZHJvbS5vcmc+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+SGkgTmlrLCANCj5jb3VsZCB5 b3UgcGxlYXNlIHVwZGF0ZSB0aGUgdGV4dCBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhpcyB0ZXh0IGFncmVlZCBi eSBBbHZhcm8sDQo+bm90IHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBvbmUuDQo+DQo+VGhhbmtzLCBUb2JpYXMNCj4N Cj4NCj5PbiAxMC8wNi8xNSAyMzo0NCwgQWx2YXJvIFJldGFuYSAoYXJldGFuYSkgd3JvdGU6DQo+ DQo+DQo+T24gNi8xMC8xNSwgNTowOSBQTSwgIlRvYmlhcyBHb25kcm9tIiA8dG9iaWFzLmdvbmRy b21AZ29uZHJvbS5vcmc+IHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPg0KPlRvYmlhczoNCj4NCj4NCj5IaSENCj4NCj4N Cj4+U28NCj4+IG15IHByb3Bvc2FsIHdvdWxkIGJlOg0KPj4NCj4+IkFueQ0KPj4gbW9kaWZpY2F0 aW9uIG9mIG9yIGV4dGVuc2lvbiB0byBleGlzdGluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMgbXVzdCBiZSBpbiBjbG9z ZQ0KPj5jb29yZGluYXRpb24gd2l0aCB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cHMgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9y IHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBiZWluZw0KPj5tb2RpZmllZCwgYW5kIG1heSBiZSBkb25lIGluIHRoaXMg d29ya2luZyBncm91cCBhZnRlciBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgd2l0aCBhbGwNCj4+dGhlIHJlbGV2YW50IFdH cyBhbmQgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgQXJlYSBEaXJlY3RvcnMuIg0KPg0KPg0KPlRoYXQgd29ya3MgZm9y IG1lLg0KPg0KPg0KPlRoYW5rcyENCj4NCj4NCj5BbHZhcm8uDQo+DQo+IA0KPl9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+RG90cyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QN Cj5Eb3RzQGlldGYub3JnaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9kb3Rz DQo+DQo+DQoNCg== From nobody Wed Jun 10 15:00:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0A41A90DF; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:00:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.664 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 uQXH57EpOqLb; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABABC1A0140; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.26] (x5ce39938.dyn.telefonica.de [92.227.153.56]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EF0F634A5; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:15 +0200 (CEST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=UtMeSBr4EljG8SDhFpWPW+YU1aOKuuzzEMDDVwTxSLqt4kTedND+55EqFR1yi9DOZf/n/SAWv/AuF+XOhb5hLyt+1n/tTuIZfpTmunKHBCXR3zcmeBaMyktKBz/A9QiYqQfpjGYnHSYlPSRf28qnlNRApdJ3gG+1QBZEa76MYc0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; Message-ID: <5578B36E.3000102@gondrom.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:14 +0200 From: Tobias Gondrom User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nteague@verisign.com, aretana@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org References: <20150608162501.10300.4910.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578A7A7.80602@gondrom.org> <5578B20F.7050607@gondrom.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050901050806020903060000" Archived-At: Cc: dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:00:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050901050806020903060000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks and thanks to Alvaro for the quick reply. Best, Tobias On 10/06/15 23:57, Teague, Nik wrote: > Tobias hi, > > I have the following in the charter update now: > > "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close > coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being > modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all > the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors.ā€ > > Thanks, > > -Nik > > On 10/06/2015 22:54, "Tobias Gondrom" wrote: > >> Hi Nik, >> could you please update the text according to this text agreed by Alvaro, >> not the previous one. >> >> Thanks, Tobias >> >> >> On 10/06/15 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: >> >> >> On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" wrote: >> >> >> Tobias: >> >> >> Hi! >> >> >>> So >>> my proposal would be: >>> >>> "Any >>> modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close >>> coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being >>> modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all >>> the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors." >> >> That works for me. >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> Alvaro. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dots mailing list >> Dots@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots >> >> --------------050901050806020903060000 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks and thanks to Alvaro for the quick reply.

Best, Tobias


On 10/06/15 23:57, Teague, Nik wrote:
Tobias hi,

I have the following in the charter update now:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close
coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being
modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all
the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors.ā€

Thanks,

-Nik

On 10/06/2015 22:54, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:


Hi Nik, 
could you please update the text according to this text agreed by Alvaro,
not the previous one.

Thanks, Tobias


On 10/06/15 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:


On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> wrote:


Tobias:


Hi!



So
my proposal would be:

"Any
modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close
coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being
modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all
the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors."


That works for me.


Thanks!


Alvaro.


_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots




    

    

  


--------------050901050806020903060000--


From nobody Wed Jun 10 15:05:19 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC771A034C for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=unavailable
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 DcCcoRPuO4xs for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f97.google.com (mail-qg0-f97.google.com [209.85.192.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 270A21B2C60 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so3671413qgd.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=c2UmSxTtwEHVVrvsE18lbEhQZ3SS8Ro9gwcWAVlaNuY=; b=Cn/8DWnQXl8KG6COEKJ3PaPbm3yYKok7sozDfKIsXcZmdz71J90khLfS1/kCC4b83o TD47DH5iGmUpbrzUsnZwjPUMy1UVDDMXkzSkstbpnaUZlKbTLnFC8i8Rw8+G8A/iucSA KxukbXItsTV/C4CsRhsxIi+nQG5AX701uFbuH4WPl4njUNv7wQlvAinihNB6MFcvN6BH 9D5Xh1TC2sFIKfuvEAytufSfR1RY8/vVX1B/hHDV7ZcdygFnihGk1++5zQoytIlSSiUP llCL2uzHoH+sRRf3sbbYS7+gR+bAu/6MOGwYG2DkFXFY23M3in+SAdrKjzrZNebVKz73 J5pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoQPnzgpnDIv0wyy7LENsAGstR8QQgTRqnfKSgLD7wXc9pcPIRrXzGxAJ1y0bd7sJ3CnBUa7mOyh+Fj8NTsbGx91GXSw==
X-Received: by 10.55.15.87 with SMTP id z84mr11499521qkg.57.1433973902243; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dh10sm2997240qcb.0.2015.06.10.15.05.01 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5AM517X026417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:05:01 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:05:01 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: Martin Stiemerling , Tobias Gondrom , "iesg@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mbziAgAAIjYCAACeaAA==
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:05:00 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.0.150423
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <324887D97552E247886FA528E72E1F9E@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:05:14 -0000
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From nobody Wed Jun 10 18:44:23 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B22D1A8759 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 gQeWd0C2s5jS for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ED871A873D for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qchs1 with SMTP id s1so2370190qch.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=p3dHDXBUDblt278EalaRg0qSMMPHzUbM2/FY6j3DLeE=; b=fnKOQFGSgm9mElDrb3nl9Qjsmu1wM90k+IMKMWFww6yC5xZXAFTsZfx3b7KHNORhI3 alJSLx2PnUq2/znCqeU3MHFKaeJ/RIkDtkmAVGCNrRy7P92yL0HuAIuhQ4mJR9uxGUXq 6be0wiGk0F0IhqpCxVPJWzVVsH4zgqb/Y0rAVzsB9aMm1Hj0TuMdRl/9OigXFdW6Vo65 vMeEN6lNVvdYnE1vwMmgLoAh/EPlBB4TohAfz+EllUTSWedDl1QxMJiLWOhRltIGG6Cm R29p2wov46C0nP38RK9/q21wch4X2o4eH/xT52E7cNY6T5kC6qP5xAyd4w1gjyjYMtXz z1Jg==
X-Received: by 10.55.16.67 with SMTP id a64mr13294156qkh.31.1433987059400; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (209-6-114-252.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com. [209.6.114.252]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z71sm4971024qkz.16.2015.06.10.18.44.17 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257)
In-Reply-To: 
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:44:16 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: 
References: 
To: "Teague, Nik" 
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - updated in regard to ballot comments
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:44:22 -0000

These changes seem pretty straight forward, so I'm going to go ahead and int=
egrate them in a few minutes.

Thanks for the organized 'updates'!
Kathleen=20

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:46 PM, "Teague, Nik"  wrote:
>=20
> Summary of updates :)
>=20
> Stephen's and Ben=E2=80=99s comments re privacy-friendly choices as a defa=
ult:
>=20
> OLD:
> The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
> standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity,
> and providing for privacy in operation.
>=20
>=20
> NEW:
> The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a standard mechanism
> for authentication and authorization, data integrity, and providing for
> privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices being the default in
> all cases.
>=20
> Alvaro=E2=80=99s comment re WG responsibility for any subsequent standardi=
sation
> and also Tobias=E2=80=99s update to the proposed verbage:
>=20
> OLD:
> The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
> protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating=

> and extension mechanisms).
>=20
>=20
> NEW:
> The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
> protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating=

> and extension mechanisms).  Any modification of or extension to existing
> protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups
> responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this
> working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible
> Area Directors.
>=20
> Barry=E2=80=99s comment re M3AAWG collaboration:
>=20
> OLD:
> The WG may coordinate on a situationally
> appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which
> compliment the DOTS effort e.g. SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. Al.
>=20
>=20
> NEW:
> The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate basis with other
> working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS effort e.g.
> M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. Al.
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> -Nik
>=20
>> On 10/06/2015 22:25, "Teague, Nik"  wrote:
>>=20
>> -[Charter for Working Group]-
>>=20
>> The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
>> based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
>> threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
>> attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation.
>>=20
>> The elements may be described as:
>> * On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
>> * Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
>> * Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or
>> influence network traffic
>>=20
>> Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and=

>> mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative
>> system.
>>=20
>> These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
>> links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
>> conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
>> signaling and telemetry solutions.  Robustness under these conditions is
>> paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication,
>> authorization, privacy and data integrity.  Elements may be deployed as
>> part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection,=

>> classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service
>> provider based.  Should changing conditions necessitate altering the
>> specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigatio=
n
>> coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat
>> status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential.  Feedback=

>> between participating elements is required for increased awareness
>> supporting effective decision making.
>>=20
>> The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
>> protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templatin=
g
>> and extension mechanisms).  Any modification of or extension to existing
>> protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups
>> responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this
>> working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible
>> Area Directors.  The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate
>> basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS=

>> effort e.g. M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.
>>=20
>> The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards trac=
k
>> specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem
>> space.  While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to=

>> network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working=

>> group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly relate=
d
>> to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation,
>> incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218
>> .  Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS i=
s
>> intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the
>> near term.  The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
>> standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity,
>> and providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices
>> being the default in all cases.
>>=20
>> The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:
>>=20
>> * Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol=

>> requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit.
>> * Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models t=
o
>> address the stated goals of the WG.
>>=20
>> * Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational)
>> * Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard)
>> * Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard)
>>=20
>> * Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG
>> * May-2016: Transport draft to IESG
>> * Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG
>>=20
>> * Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals)
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dots mailing list
>> Dots@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


From nobody Wed Jun 10 21:17:48 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E96E1A9030 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 358nfmmTpIWh for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBD441A902F for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so50093840pdb.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=djwKPcCCMGS/dotrugajfKaJ2kKHXtB/CQQpY1rUAqI=; b=SEoO9BMnbD6ahbV6Q/4+SUdc7jveOQUvPEv7SmT9j9fEpgUvvhmbbftDhmQWDC+KYL Vlvp+4xKFPlvpuZqEsd1C7hMWtoaZLe48sWqY1q7Ggl9vjjExpReFaZkuWJlG/pG+7MO HYyEUG0uEJsXCjcF3obB6K7OiRi5rAx4FLNOk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=djwKPcCCMGS/dotrugajfKaJ2kKHXtB/CQQpY1rUAqI=; b=YMq0Q6cHVrPdIGXQzDscQdXuuumjsqg/1hGJ3WflKEZFZ8F3h9Cy1WbAIqOcBIolvS l8MWG4lDR5kjUt8lSmUfV4gOrmiVOk1hMu7v1jz2DG3htkg7Hxazw5V/wIaN8NM4Wz4l va/IibEWLuEkcGxQwIcQIOSeSmQrAp+PntcQyFhXeZIDit/+ybuVYeQBCTGYhM//lOIS 0ETskr7Ew7dq3gbzWXn1OtJe9LY0hiepB3VA4IjGRrXEvZbbc8SK7CGuOI0mF+FJXGoQ 5zKtqrVHl6TnOqZBpL4mQnRlwg8mY0AfZgbRwUm7azmBECbWc+Y37AhHNqNCy+nhrjxa TiJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkeyKqG7TMxNE9O4lHlN9JxKyH1tku3z3lUj8E1RyJplVgPV+acW2Tsq/axSxkG1CjKbrTf
X-Received: by 10.68.176.131 with SMTP id ci3mr11613495pbc.146.1433996264328;  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.8.8.110] (144.237.204.207.client.static.strong24.as22781.net. [207.204.237.144]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l10sm9964510pbq.87.2015.06.10.21.17.41 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:17:37 +0700
Message-ID: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Cc: The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:17:46 -0000

On 11 Jun 2015, at 3:52, Teague, Nik wrote:

> My experience has been that even if an participating element is not,
> itself, being attacked that a link/circuit in the path may be 
> congested
> due to the attack and that this can impact the stability of connection
> oriented protocols.

I concur with this general stance, but with a caveat.

There are significant problems on many production networks with regards 
to connectionless transports making it through stateful firewalls, NATs, 
ACLs, etc.  These barriers are unlikely to be resolved in the 
foreseeable future (sadly, it seems they're likely to become more common 
over time).

Therefore, even though a connectionless transport is preferred for all 
the reasons previously noted, the application-layer protocol(s) the WG 
is working towards should also be compatible with a widely-supported 
connection-oriented transport, as well.

Otherwise, there will be significant adoption problems on many 
production networks, particularly enterprise endpoint networks.

> I support Tobiasā€™s statement that the WG is not yet ready to rule 
> out any protocols but that the choice of signal transport needs to fit 
> within the attack environment.

Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s), and that complications such as 
the aforementioned stateful firewalls, NATs, ACLs, etc. are often part 
of either the attack environment, the signal path necessary to invoke 
mitigation, or both.

> I donā€™t think, though, that the WG should operate under the 
> assumption
> that there will always be an out of band or alternate path nor should 
> it
> assume that the path will always be congested.  The WG would consider 
> both
> possibilities and determine the best solution.

Concur.  OOB for this sort of thing is preferred, but unfortunately, 
that will likely always be a minority deployment scenario.  The WG 
should definitely encourage the use of an OOB signaling path where 
possible, but must make the assumption that OOB is not and is not likely 
to be a prevalent deployment model in the foreseeable future.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Wed Jun 10 21:20:37 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC961A9036 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=unavailable
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 6OvV4DUzxWbW for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22e.google.com (mail-pd0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7EDF1A903D for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so50026346pdj.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=GgWiPPwJxSQbPZkzQa55bPoFFZrHIreRJdoUtqagIvo=; b=RDrvi4/vFqZ8W0BTaYV7C0nNTJ2Pt9yvaLIBVccg19ioGOW1TCGGRu5JYw6Spi6XGo qG1VG5YOYmyFhGGJuMdc90/LJFUDThfWYfiIQOvwniA4doyHOie2tNIzMr4nXt2B8LSJ qudmDjoZcAvDY/CumE3OJvpZcydNjLCLJ9Vr0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=GgWiPPwJxSQbPZkzQa55bPoFFZrHIreRJdoUtqagIvo=; b=IgkmPlvHAj0r/hI05DYJaPuhBQHyPTJNzwmHRFR1FfwSmkDIlpQhRQ5M5NHAbGbo1U zT5Zgx2p/FNpoQ4kUPfj3GO6PDj7Fv8SUq5sDWZadLqx7cL9+QUADHgkFr6+x13ww3uL TQlH+57kOephA4BUn/eGCIkGSSkpYs4+H6SwwBLAt26U+k71+nBj8xtLQTjrr2WBDRgN dquYw0nea3odoaL77RbA6cJjSjuLCEdtwLzUScYWngEHM4iLUkTMur/g+pwRsgo3tJS7 sABdLTz3dyJQvTOqmCX/fnmbVoTShA4dZc69dZ41FxFZ9uQQviFc49GGLFQgZU2HX9Gn ecIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQngR1H2hLFuB/wAD8rI8MT2MhCXXVbZRAEGcOOrbhv2xXdFWNQu5oKvNPpK2XhmuG1sq/Bt
X-Received: by 10.66.155.197 with SMTP id vy5mr11526263pab.104.1433996431405;  Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.8.8.110] (144.237.204.207.client.static.strong24.as22781.net. [207.204.237.144]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rd7sm9987073pdb.64.2015.06.10.21.20.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:20:25 +0700
Message-ID: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>  
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Cc: The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:20:33 -0000

On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:

> Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Wed Jun 10 22:56:57 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC101A8ADA; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 RtEo-UBMbDTb; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AA21A8AD1; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Spencer Dawkins" 
To: "The IESG" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150611035330.29203.21091.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 20:53:30 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:56:55 -0700
Cc: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:53:32 -0000

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have the same question Martin has, in his BLOCK. If there are any
requirements for the transport protocol that would disqualify TCP (or,
for extra credit, SCTP or MP-TCP),  it would be great to know that at
charter time.

Thank you for addressing Stephen's BLOCK-light.



From nobody Thu Jun 11 03:38:20 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2501B2F2C for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 wlHugdJeeoXm for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A121B2F29 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pabqy3 with SMTP id qy3so2016750pab.3 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdKgsS8AaTdRJJ/YIfQoK0TuF9tMpZmHNinqFPEkF24=; b=fMqZWj8vjFif32l9xgTWuHMK9V70JTGN5It4x9rY1+R3p9cLIQOyDNy+aX/XA/3YLw WewvZTxMDor3M1it/vwlDBCw9srhQuZdqXs6NyethqnFvsbHqZ4fieJ00pEf0aePKUiA hRCRBAjSn0hxYWtfW6fRHfSkkZXiYXzNbfDCE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdKgsS8AaTdRJJ/YIfQoK0TuF9tMpZmHNinqFPEkF24=; b=AQYfuhuvN09xHPTm1cGIMirlckzhsuPnL94galgjOh2I/X3BHiZExC+4CJI+ggR1T4 FyTGvv0dORoTqqIn3z/X7dWX7HGo/FthV7UXNMOWuGfBxAWGCARuMVYf3QXnQT2oDDFK 074wMykqPS6tNbNkx7cUenoeKpEj3u2EzdFGvzR07Xij4dFGIpCCsIthncGUshEVsb4y UlzM93vCLWhztmcuJuxsCoGHeNCgJFNUtVtEVKRg/lMZ+7ykjd3PJN8C5UozAcxDHhgm a7JX674gY+3K6097/f6pVUt9qbLt7QlA5eWxeSm2Z0FsjUrwm6RMrwthTHVEA6IqrE5l j1kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKCIp+xreK95xfqTGDoIhAmmO/Lr1xsZ4mau18egIMC2qoXQR06/32UdnPVEjXZQSO2Flp
X-Received: by 10.68.191.101 with SMTP id gx5mr13951439pbc.148.1434019097172;  Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fp3sm343141pdb.52.2015.06.11.03.38.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: dots@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:38:08 +0700
Message-ID: <4B3E5A07-04F1-45B3-8423-66D2B882BE07@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <95BBF788-BAE5-42D5-808C-21C7D6D803E2@arbor.net>
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> <95BBF788-BAE5-42D5-808C-21C7D6D803E2@arbor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Cc: mls.ietf@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:38:19 -0000

On 11 Jun 2015, at 4:16, Andrew Mortensen wrote:

> If thatā€™s not the case, we should make it explicit in the charter.

Per previous comments on the operational challenges of stateful 
firewall, NAT, and ACL traversal faced by connectionless protocols, I 
concur that both a general preference for connectionless transport as 
well as recognition of the need for a widely-supported 
connection-oriented transport option explicit in the charter.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Thu Jun 11 04:12:10 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406C71A1B11 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=ham
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 SDM5Ci-Afmg7 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f97.google.com (mail-qg0-f97.google.com [209.85.192.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D37881A1AFC for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdq107 with SMTP id q107so151401qgd.0 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=eU0FrkI4I+E1uIt74AWUDJogsp8PkSpEiV1sUsNJcEY=; b=FKLYg0CLyrepxB0MYcVNiql5nOTIZbwJ6hvp/mdgXjYavF7BKei6wB+1XGr9rnSA9L zPhztAFOn/1dB4Zk5T0Jk4qc4K9zKX1vbFe0QEupeQQZJX9i4oGdIRYjAHujBEumRDem ZGO97NOnlJbp5gwv7P6ixD32Ff1s1VhwggA84sZSlP9RlPwsbUZPo3sHPAOFFdYngj2Z Yjy09L5iEjxmgX6wbthpa20aQPlucqyYvHJzkmhfnlkBC2rrb48nLWM3oaq51PmGRe92 nDDW9eisQV1acRhIF9cbnsex+OLZeX+Jl6wDvQwUqvK0Igz1bfPZU3aFqfbF7Gl5wpsQ EeDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQneGXeyv+uE1tohbQN0gSQcpHf0aw9wXmyx920AY/pT99hyGv6tOAUKhmPEmlRfzbZZoXNqoIm7vnkk8HtwNrio1XnhQw==
X-Received: by 10.55.24.74 with SMTP id j71mr17426366qkh.48.1434021121909; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lx8sm85348qcb.2.2015.06.11.04.12.01 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5BBC0lI023422 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:12:00 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:12:00 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mbziAgAAIjYCAAAMKAIAABiCAgADgGQCAABo2gA==
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:11:59 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> <95BBF788-BAE5-42D5-808C-21C7D6D803E2@arbor.net> <4B3E5A07-04F1-45B3-8423-66D2B882BE07@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B3E5A07-04F1-45B3-8423-66D2B882BE07@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6439066A7F02C242B693CC68C868563F@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "mls.ietf@gmail.com" , "iesg@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:12:05 -0000
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From nobody Thu Jun 11 05:25:14 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDF01A9085 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=unavailable
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 eCBr4ZH3trR4 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f97.google.com (mail-qg0-f97.google.com [209.85.192.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 693CE1ACE7F for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so222475qgd.3 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zcUgWQzXPyhsMAwYFmySJSDjSCidgehj1H8vTMb2aTM=; b=EdfHbFPKRdw5AaCXVAfxqypidrfUQde/KEpSZNR2LzQzqAgLlQGlDHff0OqQKHwZG6 Nk9nII0f+JCzjlWr7fNg/xt1RDamgFwQV5KMlDz6fF8Hr3oVcif9JRu8jVYFiFW2RzvP LlPtDwS3dBt1uo9F+CZy4+7+C1ug0zAdbANQdqHSrwf8JzKby7SHlPhyyXOufBq4rL+N Dm92YeNuiecY3GYncLpHq1hn4G17v8dY9eUsX44IsmYmdHql6TuwloKW8DOuDrso7nJt MkRtp44z5M8kn38RI6gQISas+m7F+43FJDKzdgUTE5ldrAMS6PRYxwFjwlXqXukf/2/v oWoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBZ8H2j545NS0upKXAEcPra1xFlFCuVykOifa13xoA8NGbMyIiJlzZI3fwFu8/hGUloa4U233+g67XwGL3CjXZJQ1OiQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.134.83 with SMTP id 80mr11328899qhg.28.1434025429607; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hx6sm133685qcb.1.2015.06.11.05.23.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5BCNmsJ031638 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:23:48 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:23:47 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: "Teague, Nik" , Martin Stiemerling , Tobias Gondrom , "iesg@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mbziAgAAIjYCAACeaAIAA7+2A
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:23:46 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <94BB2133C1C9954EAE7B0BF477288144@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:25:09 -0000
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From nobody Thu Jun 11 06:19:46 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC19A1AD087 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 vGlCwdYMULsf for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 431F41A1BEE for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iebps5 with SMTP id ps5so5667956ieb.3 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3e+jUp7OC9uAZaHmdj61S98tBEO9IF+3zYKYYlSoFXk=; b=dls6JpG8ExfId4EVxGKtanxn2yLQmfGKCFmIGZBccpnz+WYYqu+Z4AcI+jmcoVxFhj VdPoUbkyMyOcWbcr1DuHF0mMyObdt6fp/qCQZ+STnNh9WF5LlH+zIMbJOmX/5esvnnoG +fLAHCtZOkYvh8+ues2pPCzlllLiwMIKn6ibc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=3e+jUp7OC9uAZaHmdj61S98tBEO9IF+3zYKYYlSoFXk=; b=Z9GT2jDhRaN5Q/FtkLpifHJ1vvxl3nSJ7HfihsJqCQqfyByzVAFuAZ2BrjKGMAx+oX AqONVhzOqoGTFsdymMFpI38kb9UfC6ztWLXWURcR0ncluwE194zhwHSY48I2FKfo7d9a LXkPYievcZYN5qmxdBe6ftAcmrzMmD6X0yorbEkFS99qFP/RiELOipyBaJbuK9LTwoiu CdSBs9ldP3BdO+ZTxx6hnm5JCTiMpWX/ahK6kKJV0s807+FVWXHPreNMNzTivruMRorM 1mAN6+iyxwgXQHKjXuRytPvTgeOlh7+PXtWn8XEZyYVaWtuFGB8DNUyVoX8DetNPOV2J I9Nw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmq4i4erxBVMrnkmrbUywv2fTuLfEBJEgLVirzj86hj3p1XEB3s5+uX0oKIHRNDv3QMeW4l
X-Received: by 10.107.16.93 with SMTP id y90mr11411520ioi.69.1434028782741; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (c-68-40-187-116.hsd1.mi.comcast.net. [68.40.187.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id av6sm5291110igc.17.2015.06.11.06.19.41 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Andrew Mortensen 
In-Reply-To: 
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:19:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <95D7EAE5-2E88-4CC0-9FA8-1957F3AD5F02@arbor.net>
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> <95BBF788-BAE5-42D5-808C-21C7D6D803E2@arbor.net> <4B3E5A07-04F1-45B3-8423-66D2B882BE07@arbor.net> 
To: "Teague, Nik" 
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , "mls.ietf@gmail.com" , "dots@ietf.org" , "iesg@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:19:45 -0000

> On Jun 11, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Teague, Nik  wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> Are we suggesting we define the protocol characteristics in the =
charter or
> should be we call out that transport protocol pursuant to the =
operating
> conditions will require examination and that this should be explicit =
in
> the charter?

I=E2=80=99m in favor of calling out the need for transport evaluation in =
the charter. Making transport choices in the charter seems misguided in =
the wake of the discussion following Martin=E2=80=99s comments.

andrew


> On 11/06/2015 11:38, "Roland Dobbins"  wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 4:16, Andrew Mortensen wrote:
>>=20
>>> If that=E2=80=99s not the case, we should make it explicit in the =
charter.
>>=20
>> Per previous comments on the operational challenges of stateful
>> firewall, NAT, and ACL traversal faced by connectionless protocols, I
>> concur that both a general preference for connectionless transport as
>> well as recognition of the need for a widely-supported
>> connection-oriented transport option explicit in the charter.
>>=20
>> -----------------------------------
>> Roland Dobbins 
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dots mailing list
>> Dots@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


From nobody Thu Jun 11 06:34:59 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F7D1A038E for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 ikuH8UQRKKbr for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 140901A039C for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdjn11 with SMTP id n11so4625357pdj.0 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SpVRBgcQrw3Jwq9btUvmclIi4xHC7xu4M/NADPX/k94=; b=R6JeWw8ApZp8WOQB0nq/Ve1GCAfvxx5Vw7LEI0EBPEMR4Dw+5osnkJF1vb4yXqwaPE GH1aDYQSyGEWcAXWVbSEUuSpTtz+RI39fFJ63Jmo0q4LYFZvnfdTz/g3IfNx8kEKQ4HY R5M8JAXIiMsWz7wvHFDCc34+QNDgGe4fb87go=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SpVRBgcQrw3Jwq9btUvmclIi4xHC7xu4M/NADPX/k94=; b=TXLDYE3zV2K56aaEf0IjuBtK9HXRKY0YiTLeIELOvjj2HDY3RRphLNC4NsV7owRBKa 75CAxpusili7MCDHDBSvnkp7HvZr+BZ2UceQwxWvqW8WRRPdlnj6GIBTRHZKR15mDV4A tUVgsrmX1DCdXwX4O9fYKmPYweXnl3VaEN6Gi2EICmriluEVMpsKijeYYqPCjcJxs7ka yUZNXcrmITbNZizzNetB7iXScGaY/he8/kwmX+AeJtwfcZXPbqoqvAeK6wPY2h8Rdq3z +edoCeAOZAs90gKccoPk+o1FfRMfTYXkFsKh+OnRvH2QWPUhoJt9y60h2cdsS6z7YQzL ZnqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZaXCJ13tSsh9jlDHbLRrS/uVGzK+J/Yu4JU0+4IdItzCXOvoHxYm/62Wbay6d3xqyriUi
X-Received: by 10.68.192.98 with SMTP id hf2mr14750468pbc.142.1434029692637; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mx5sm819409pdb.75.2015.06.11.06.34.48 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:34:44 +0700
Message-ID: 
In-Reply-To: <95D7EAE5-2E88-4CC0-9FA8-1957F3AD5F02@arbor.net>
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com> <5578A3F0.9060302@gondrom.org> <95BBF788-BAE5-42D5-808C-21C7D6D803E2@arbor.net> <4B3E5A07-04F1-45B3-8423-66D2B882BE07@arbor.net>  <95D7EAE5-2E88-4CC0-9FA8-1957F3AD5F02@arbor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Cc: "mls.ietf@gmail.com" , "iesg@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:34:54 -0000

On 11 Jun 2015, at 20:19, Andrew Mortensen wrote:

> Iā€™m in favor of calling out the need for transport evaluation in the 
> charter.

I concur.  This is a good approach, IMHO.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Thu Jun 11 06:53:42 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B263B1AD17F for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=ham
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 U2gbQ2A6OhAv for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f100.google.com (mail-qg0-f100.google.com [209.85.192.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366C81AD063 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so345895qgd.1 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/B2JoaLX/3FzVFUBiKmRC8nkmX3U4Jwn1OIk59e8sFU=; b=L8RHba/Qr5z6OBhiffpLEZEWpiHPZmpYJ7lftiodyEKkWrq5oBd+1p1gpBqvc0tn0+ ps9YZ8Pn52W+6SLKiIiIghNm+HAWGVDwg/QqxPDOJ5Iwkq5hGrbqqVPCRdRfwy33G7mY 4tI6/mWXop5wqat7NnM3Gc7VQpdsDY6HSeUgrVMUgcPA4Lg9G/CXNxu2qe+Sud6N8hY1 WFGv1VL2nMpIhskj1iOsfB0powyyF0K+2W2X3A9Lsoc96GAJdGLMkdFy5thx5otCSwQp tEAunIsIKxuICFG+jkoQ8zylVV+V0tkDSe55ZfbWckuQWw5MPAXdbINNIVbKMXj69Qdi XVJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkR8xDjY/ueb4HCIRtgQJ/MA3x6mi+TwiwZjxoy9G1Fo+nfFGKa2LFXmOA3sUhEl8N6AD+v5lc5zLXmZgV/h59OJ2jcbQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.15.87 with SMTP id z84mr18792988qkg.57.1434030814494; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e4sm201444qcm.3.2015.06.11.06.53.34 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5BDrWKI009724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:53:32 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:53:32 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: "Teague, Nik" , Martin Stiemerling , Tobias Gondrom , "iesg@ietf.org" , "bclaise@cisco.com" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mbziAgAAIjYCAACeaAIAA7+2AgAAZFIA=
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:53:31 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55789A37.6030200@gondrom.org> <5578A163.5080801@gmail.com>  
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:53:37 -0000
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From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:15:04 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EC41AD49D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 L-XF8Ip48hay for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f98.google.com (mail-oi0-f98.google.com [209.85.218.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B871AD377 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiax69 with SMTP id x69so381025oia.1 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:accept-language:content-language:user-agent:content-type :content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DhgH57u5rOinEpc+0b9yFSauMCaOb4IepsjJdwcvED8=; b=U1NLSP+x7isciMxvfYVIX5ncEVUw3ZgtCNyqyd60uzjIZEXh7FsgYFJGZCWJKHOu6s TH4uVwab5d8SyWclDbLa2U//lbGHoQbNZOulgaEKRd+kiyziIJX5g/LXnQKvdKdlaWjV YlF+0h+4eIpoNs/1+qWxmWBedvTn9xUNsQdIuVS/focp7YCqgIn52wwqWcAJj+OLT+0l 1pXZHlfnPVcQrAu4RYbBiiPa/XCZlhqSyhFepoS2qEdXverlaUfMBV69U7MpC/HpG0Qy jU4kcpKBz4CLIO1e+/TxxcFEdXCHRJuhBhh42ZF9FFU6XMucNhT6GzF/SYvwaFUbkn+o RamA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnO8UssMO3dKt2Z19Rckl3NEBlI5iAoRMwv2PMrRhfLZpc3InKHzTzJ6AEZI03U8/2maONmq8XnAojF3UpxPI76NPOTAQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.216.208 with SMTP id m199mr12253537qhb.69.1434032100029;  Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com. [72.13.63.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lx8sm220667qcb.2.2015.06.11.07.14.59 for  (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5BEExIM012421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:14:59 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:14:59 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: DOTS draft charter - update with transport evaluation added
Thread-Index: AQHQpFD+KWAh2jY8YEa5mehM5siKQA==
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:14:57 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - update with transport evaluation added
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:15:02 -0000
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=


From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:25:34 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF72F1B29CB; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 VxMl07whVCBF; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x241.google.com (mail-wi0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23451AD379; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibbw19 with SMTP id bw19so3208486wib.2; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jYEIBZgOsVJvrniH+KxcE/w72S/TSZy9Q7wzeR4sjJs=; b=LKueEFDZxtzf2PWOKrmJC9Ir7T5UOyk5kHR6L7bttwoBTa0enBFUv8uBcYpKUfSEGA ETEisR7MaS4iOyQjyRUD1HIzZRCoZQvG18OFdLIgoi5i0wcly3vA4Uaf2AwX2vJj7PW1 XI4JmToG2ZaD4lOVgwoLBDvWGntRUl/KhddB1daw1wCsqhA3GZYNSQLYHgnYVYunvPHD glilcS4r6ZK3RGdggnbDACJvgMRpuVNbuwqOaD9mvytpPwvFr1mBo54TWaVEAwy6Tb4Y ZvCLWMKbylqmfgbQ2fTxscEsh5uAYfEG49WTjbL3KvfbR+iww4knGmN2qF7kLErVq5KS Li0g==
X-Received: by 10.180.182.33 with SMTP id eb1mr19871183wic.8.1434032646769; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Martins-MBP.fritz.box ([2001:1a80:2809:900:8f3:633a:6a93:2285]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb3sm13077502wib.21.2015.06.11.07.24.04 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:24:03 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>   
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:25:32 -0700
Cc: The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:24:10 -0000

Hi all,

I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email 
discussions.

I would propose to say:
OLD
"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
NEW
"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular 
transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized "

This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there is the 
assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer 
without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be troublesome 
to any type of transport/signaling crossing this link, as the link is 
anyway out of free resources (or close to), though signaling and attack 
traffic might travel the opposite direction.

Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the paragraph 
starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing 
standard":

"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be used 
for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the 
requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation 
scheme for DOTS."

This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport Area 
will talk to each other in order to double check your requirements and 
what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.

Let me know your feedback.

   Martin

Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>
> On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>> Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>
> This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins 
>


From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:28:35 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A461A0045; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fEQ59TN4P1-n; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4013D1A002A; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgme6 with SMTP id e6so6323502wgm.2; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=411s+L8tqD67C4Cw2hkZWBUMuBBBpsVPsXGGZRK3owg=; b=bkWQlXx3ue11eQwLXQ8mgrmNBFhxR1XYu1dHCx68bsNegT/dIQs7tYvGoTHj75nA4e JHj20OGGQ829sOflgmulfF3o3w1vLCnWJSDnJzRKKCvRtgmeOPDlsiREsiIIXWJPu442 +RnTHqzQRY4wqHYEjf25yB/KRDjjLzUSTpde0N/DHEZTqtvwtshoS34MHNV3X2sVCY3r FgLmpJKd0jjZsM7y0v6XmvyHAtX86aEZvpTdpxXtao4XWgxNzx+EF7GPCsx/byZlbosd rQ//gOTY1BQc73MFm6DKwaxnzMnGhEXBLKFsKcNXPo4gqgCKo8F5+8orCvsH2v8wOjuz rQlA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.95.67 with SMTP id di3mr19498920wib.78.1434032910985; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:28:30 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: Martin Stiemerling 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044287e2416ed105183ece51
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:28:34 -0000

--f46d044287e2416ed105183ece51
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
> discussions.
>
> I would propose to say:
> OLD
> "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
> links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
> conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
> NEW
> "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
> links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
> hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular
> transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized "
>
> This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there is the
> assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer without
> ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be troublesome to any type
> of transport/signaling crossing this link, as the link is anyway out of
> free resources (or close to), though signaling and attack traffic might
> travel the opposite direction.
>
> Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the paragraph
> starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing
> standard":
>
> "The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be used
> for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the
> requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation
> scheme for DOTS."
>
> This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport Area
> will talk to each other in order to double check your requirements and what
> is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.
>
> Let me know your feedback.
>

The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some proponents
chime in before making an update.

Thank you,
Kathleen

>
>   Martin
>
> Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>
>
>> On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>>
>>  Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>>>
>>
>> This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>> Roland Dobbins 
>>
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

--f46d044287e2416ed105183ece51
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling =
<mls.ietf@gmail.=
com> wrote:
Hi all,



I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email discussio=
ns.



I would propose to say:

OLD

"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over=


links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile

conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
NEW

"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over=


links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially

hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular transp=
ort protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized "



This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there is the as=
sumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer without ru=
ling them out. Further, a congested link will be troublesome to any type of=
 transport/signaling crossing this link, as the link is anyway out of free =
resources (or close to), though signaling and attack traffic might travel t=
he opposite direction.



Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the paragraph sta=
rting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing s=
tandard":



"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be us=
ed for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the =
requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation sch=
eme for DOTS."



This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport Area wi=
ll talk to each other in order to double check your requirements and what i=
s possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.



Let me know your feedback.

The suggesti=
ons look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some proponents chime i=
n before making an update.

Thank you,
Ka=
thleen=C2=A0



=C2=A0 Martin



Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:






On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:





Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),





This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.



-----------------------------------

Roland Dobbins <=
rdobbins@arbor.net>











-- 
=


Best regards,
Kathleen




--f46d044287e2416ed105183ece51--


From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:30:52 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE721A00CA for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=unavailable
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 Y2IdOAFEfs-T for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f99.google.com (mail-oi0-f99.google.com [209.85.218.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D13D1A00A8 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiav1 with SMTP id v1so402951oia.3 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DE9xvz6JsVTk05d/lHj9AkLOlHGDOogOa5q2ul4yBvA=; b=ES/KRqv7ltB02o9smxHeSAqXkIOYFYiE00+IxEkD12EPc0p3ZLVEDNw0Ud/ZUgBJgW qUIuRNOqvVwE9jMJWwNOMV0gTJy6wyiheoyhBdE1EuAJgAr3tFknKX+hm/hKt+8wMMib tXEbzA1GvRrar6yn9obRW4lm6/Eka9h7XQTlReMPtjHa/Ve1qhHIhumy71JifCYV0QZT UAsLwrTZZdT/2qTlKC+4ta4pPUE6VEr6NGek43nGRdeBFydLdr26l/Q7xG9igHpZCL7N oJU5T0F2539LoGmQ3oNDSvnaWbSiQidrvrbahOWvOFhg/lmI4CB278Rc3wbJxsc4JMNU /oWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk4+fGWQV8OMQx2Arerh26d3KxyhlNyOqnlhqWdBQEaAs+RoLE7C69sc3LEcEH49O3oAoe+CFR7Q6iJXwKy1VaL0Rp1lA==
X-Received: by 10.55.19.106 with SMTP id d103mr19475085qkh.42.1434033045414; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fg3sm231486qcb.4.2015.06.11.07.30.44 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01 [10.173.152.255]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5BEUiLc010099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:30:44 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:30:44 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: Kathleen Moriarty , Martin Stiemerling 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mizeAgABrgICAAADJgIAAqKeAgAABPgCAABFggA==
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:30:43 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7DC004F160DCFE4B8309BCC576B11CEB@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:30:47 -0000
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From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:33:42 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDA11A0107; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 x0lys6kMLjNc; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD2B1A0102; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgme6 with SMTP id e6so6410141wgm.2; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=DPqwGujuNt78STn5L9o4HMioletsfy3xIgy1pLHpo9s=; b=Wzt+m0CAnE3fUpKEqNP9FZyoc4nE9BEvsnwW0PZEIIdUVH70vvrmYo5wOa6TEZpVU7 QzBDtlL6FXz7nZI8uNh7Z7mYulnGDyc0pCTTkQ1MWvjUtihuShoX8JSVIvgDz5FIPxNI sH7FHDbn1SOxwncnkyzt545CRFmOAmef49Hfl7/jp191auk8oskOrJo3qLkKOMnEfnLu sCMxB99NbPTpgC46Yfdg4DPVQ2b5O3g6R91fdr4HpAJY55/S2tNM//IKzLgEgYywYPOx z/fVA3iX58ZgX7ewYVjl9VDFZXDln/7zXs/47tHfi3kLVyQxg0v5ysDLg5HZoizokuR1 ZopA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.222.230 with SMTP id qp6mr17435458wjc.70.1434033215956;  Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>  
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:33:35 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: "Teague, Nik" 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bad86eeb7505183ee00d
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , Martin Stiemerling , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:33:39 -0000

--001a11c3bad86eeb7505183ee00d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to specifically=
 call out
> working with the Transport Area.
>
> I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.
>

If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the old/new makes
it easy.

Thanks,
Kathleen


>
> Thanks,
>
> -Nik
>
> On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling
> > wrote:
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
> >discussions.
> >
> >I would propose to say:
> >OLD
> >"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
> >links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
> >conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
> >NEW
> >"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
> >links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
> >hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular
> >transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized "
> >
> >This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there is the
> >assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer
> >without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be troublesome t=
o
> >any type of transport/signaling crossing this
> > link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to), though
> >signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.
> >
> >Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the paragraph
> >starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing
> >standard":
> >
> >"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be used
> >for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the
> >requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation
> >scheme for DOTS."
> >
> >This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport Area
> >will talk to each other in order to double check your requirements and
> >what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.
> >
> >Let me know your feedback.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some
> >proponents chime in before making an update.
> >
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Kathleen
> >
> >
> >  Martin
> >
> >Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
> >
> >
> >
> >On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> >
> >Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
> >
> >
> >
> >This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
> >
> >-----------------------------------
> >Roland Dobbins 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Kathleen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


--=20

Best regards,
Kathleen

--001a11c3bad86eeb7505183ee00d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com=
> wrote:
Hi,



I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to specifically c=
all out

working with the Transport Area.



I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.

If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the old/=
new makes it easy.

Thanks,
Kathleen
=C2=A0



Thanks,



-Nik



On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"


<kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:



>

>

>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling

><mls.ietf@gmail.com> wr=
ote:

>

>Hi all,

>

>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email

>discussions.

>

>I would propose to say:

>OLD

>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain =
over

>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile

>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"=
;

>NEW

>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain =
over

>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially<=
br>
>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular
>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized &quo=
t;

>

>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there is th=
e

>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer

>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be troublesome =
to

>any type of transport/signaling crossing this

> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to), thoug=
h

>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.

>

>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the paragraph=


>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend exi=
sting

>standard":

>

>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to b=
e used

>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the=


>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation=


>scheme for DOTS."

>

>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport Are=
a

>will talk to each other in order to double check your requirements and<=
br>
>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.

>

>Let me know your feedback.

>

>

>

>

>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some
>proponents chime in before making an update.

>

>

>Thank you,

>Kathleen

>

>

>=C2=A0 Martin

>

>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:

>

>

>

>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:

>

>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

>

>

>

>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>

>-----------------------------------

>Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor=
.net>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>--

>

>Best regards,

>Kathleen

>

>

>

>







-- 
=


Best regards,
Kathleen




--001a11c3bad86eeb7505183ee00d--


From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:38:29 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024D11A6EE4 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=ham
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 wjABb91V75fG for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f100.google.com (mail-qg0-f100.google.com [209.85.192.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5EF71B2FC7 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgdz60 with SMTP id z60so410175qgd.3 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:user-agent:content-type:content-id :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ARkdM8p6opq2EO1mPNydid865gm+REFjapdH6HBf9bw=; b=MuR4rhO0biAm8tnSjIjH/Jk88Xj8R+MsSNxSBv8ix/jcZDzqO+ECpVIJ3zS2o9dyqD bw1gV9uz4bLjfim7Uxd3es1h2yK2wz9wZWhDHco1GW8acJXy7PlwlJ4Yc9202y2VrA9L Vm3y9kWNVLRRZ8SwSJAAwZYI+bwikth7Fp3BPW7RzvGwoxUuFg2baO2u2CvXbFp8B2xB yy0QYc3UNNcWT9Ow44HCYNa0WTdSiQg6dg0fSGtvfWLDbqRrduQC0wSaJ0/HmDgXR99A 2DZ64GRPmq4fKU2JExMb16A1BcktsljM2XScuI3aKJPnWduIt5RR5/1D4/lMx4SPmtEJ 61XA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkbYP0LzcZhEQ3jM8lfAzZWLIgQYR2+Sz23NtoXUq2wRrE83rTmxgm9ufqN0fsJm/kFiTjJCBF5/MGOFl5EmroV+r8VIg==
X-Received: by 10.55.25.150 with SMTP id 22mr19562361qkz.105.1434033323997; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hx6sm237797qcb.1.2015.06.11.07.35.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas02 [10.173.152.206]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5BEZNrt010719 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:35:23 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:35:22 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: Kathleen Moriarty 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQo7drsEt2G98Gj0OG/Tx1IG4zrJ2mizeAgABrgICAAADJgIAAqKeAgAABPgCAABFggP//8AyAgAARP4A=
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:35:21 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>   
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3CCD0A0A508ADB4FB5B92CBA367F5654@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , Martin Stiemerling , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:38:29 -0000
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From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:48:08 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C777B1B2F86; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:47:01 -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] autolearn=ham
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 Lm4IF-sDiG32; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395B31B3000; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" 
To: "The IESG" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150611144641.9092.36239.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:46:41 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:48:07 -0700
Cc: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:47:02 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Based one the fact that DDOS systems within different ISPs already
discuss together today (but with a proprietary protocol), as mentioned by
Kathleen, I'm clearing my DISCUSS.
For documentation purposes, the BLOCK was: 
More of DISCUSS-DISCUSS for the telechat than a BLOCK.

"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions."

"Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol
requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit."

I would strongly encourage the group to focus first on the intra-domain:
this is already a huge problem. The inter-domain use cases will lead to
different set of requirements (sending telemetry info across domains,
potential synchronization of the collecting infrastructure).
Sharing IPFIX data between domains is not a reality today, and and when I
see "Feedback between participating elements is required for increased
awareness supporting effective decision making.", it remains to be seen
if elements from different domains will communicate...
Don't make the scope too big.


========================
Btw, any link with BGP Flow Spec to block the attack?



From nobody Thu Jun 11 07:52:35 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C991B302C; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 86JhT_feBUu5; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E61B1B3027; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibdq8 with SMTP id dq8so11624286wib.1; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SUs2fM6hligMzoy1IlXY012atsafl4ZWLW/Gc8+SUg4=; b=dLK0fwc48h2GvCC6u9qIc4i/nJMmoE9TKRORhdd1WoHVlSUH55hldy248vV+BhKCdG DrmAkYbxHlbWG1/sMWZh3duD+6gFhzn5MFu3APL889Lk85O2iADcKGu90MU1BuG3knuv O3NDZbxuN/uS6LDJwSgCFZI95BNkp0LKiAHgsBOcKHW/9e2peYEBZ7JExc8LTMMi11UD lqWvcz3eHXdzMwe4sbBASukFhlb19/TVIOMaC9gtVntMT9vhcPy80+JQrB2UnKF92oWS 4IvlDivvKwXg0Dqj8lvidi8hjD8HwvBZMe87GOnycn66zq/GcDLSHJwjNMKLyBqgKDT7 5niA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.9.104 with SMTP id y8mr17682574wja.86.1434034348245; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>    
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:52:28 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: "Teague, Nik" 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d9889ec463c05183f23bc
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , Martin Stiemerling , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:52:32 -0000

--047d7b5d9889ec463c05183f23bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Martin,

The updates have been made.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes I think the text is good.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Nik
>
> On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik
> > wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to specificall=
y call out
> >working with the Transport Area.
> >
> >I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the old/new make=
s
> >it easy.
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Kathleen
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >-Nik
> >
> >On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
> >>discussions.
> >>
> >>I would propose to say:
> >>OLD
> >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
> >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
> >>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
> >>NEW
> >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
> >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
> >>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular
> >>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized "
> >>
> >>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there is th=
e
> >>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer
> >>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be troublesome =
to
> >>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
> >> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to), thoug=
h
> >>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.
> >>
> >>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the paragraph
> >>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing
> >>standard":
> >>
> >>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be use=
d
> >>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the
> >>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation
> >>scheme for DOTS."
> >>
> >>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport Are=
a
> >>will talk to each other in order to double check your requirements and
> >>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.
> >>
> >>Let me know your feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some
> >>proponents chime in before making an update.
> >>
> >>
> >>Thank you,
> >>Kathleen
> >>
> >>
> >>  Martin
> >>
> >>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> >>
> >>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
> >>
> >>-----------------------------------
> >>Roland Dobbins 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>Kathleen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Kathleen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


--=20

Best regards,
Kathleen

--047d7b5d9889ec463c05183f23bc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Martin,

The updates have been made. =C2=
=A0

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 a=
t 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com> wrote:
=

Hi,



Yes I think the text is good.



Thanks!



-Nik



On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"


<kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:



>

>

>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik

><nteague@verisign.com>=
; wrote:

>

>Hi,

>

>I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to specifical=
ly call out

>working with the Transport Area.

>

>I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.

>

>

>

>

>If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the old/new=
 makes

>it easy.

>

>

>Thanks,

>Kathleen

>

>

>

>Thanks,

>

>-Nik

>

>On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"

><kathleen.moriar=
ty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling

>><mls.ietf@gmail.com>=
; wrote:

>>

>>Hi all,

>>

>>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
>>discussions.

>>

>>I would propose to say:

>>OLD

>>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-dom=
ain over

>>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile<=
br>
>>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized&=
quot;

>>NEW

>>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-dom=
ain over

>>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentia=
lly

>>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particula=
r

>>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized =
"

>>

>>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there i=
s the

>>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer<=
br>
>>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be troubles=
ome to

>>any type of transport/signaling crossing this

>> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to), t=
hough

>>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.
>>

>>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the parag=
raph

>>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend=
 existing

>>standard":

>>

>>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol =
to be used

>>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about=
 the

>>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsula=
tion

>>scheme for DOTS."

>>

>>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the Transport=
 Area

>>will talk to each other in order to double check your requirements =
and

>>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.
>>

>>Let me know your feedback.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear som=
e

>>proponents chime in before making an update.

>>

>>

>>Thank you,

>>Kathleen

>>

>>

>>=C2=A0 Martin

>>

>>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:

>>

>>

>>

>>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:

>>

>>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

>>

>>

>>

>>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusio=
n.

>>

>>-----------------------------------

>>Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@a=
rbor.net>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>--

>>

>>Best regards,

>>Kathleen

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>--

>

>Best regards,

>Kathleen

>

>

>

>







-- 
=


Best regards,
Kathleen




--047d7b5d9889ec463c05183f23bc--


From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:16:32 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4021B2B2C; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 EATcnq9dHyMv; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x243.google.com (mail-wi0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639231B29D0; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wivr20 with SMTP id r20so3700611wiv.1; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7yiTN9qr72M4toRmrSf0pfWgv8Jj84VaTuDV02c86xI=; b=F5CjnTDTMZYwydNJe9Y3JtebH9CsHb6C4AeEhXZsRyS6zYXaMggH7wQgd1gpdO5q9R ZwhFsmYzE0k/prEPjl/nsvIgN/8sovbUORQ3N1JJRC6Np9VDm4dmBYs04fZ/gc+PNGzz T8Nnn6ylpWFWXFkq2o4QBbRLuDlApUz226g04np9Sp0H6qzOXWYloGyGRbzCMzeVYKtq /ZeTGpAXXJi0lG2xGnLNXRLPQClO/8+j5YXh497q4IIKqA3OwSY6zOYfQPQkSVtVi9r1 EgDKPYxDMbizb6ORLGHYE9MKkP7VxafdGG6dCm8mRFQRnffEnnYY3W9yZXz8uKHKZVgn qOZg==
X-Received: by 10.194.59.79 with SMTP id x15mr1932239wjq.81.1434035649189; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Martins-MacBook-Pro.local (ip-109-42-3-248.web.vodafone.de. [109.42.3.248]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm2066579wic.16.2015.06.11.08.14.04 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5579A5BA.4060404@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:14:02 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kathleen Moriarty ,  "Teague, Nik" 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>				<55799A03.20002@gmail.com>				 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:16:31 -0700
Cc: Roland Dobbins , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:14:12 -0000

Thanks & I have cleared.

The text after the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in the tracker.

   Martin

Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:
> Martin,
>
> The updates have been made.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik  > wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Yes I think the text is good.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     -Nik
>
>     On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>          > wrote:
>
>      >
>      >
>      >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik
>      >> wrote:
>      >
>      >Hi,
>      >
>      >Iā€™m fine with the clarification and the agreement to specifically
>     call out
>      >working with the Transport Area.
>      >
>      >Iā€™ll get an updated charter out asap.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the
>     old/new makes
>      >it easy.
>      >
>      >
>      >Thanks,
>      >Kathleen
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >Thanks,
>      >
>      >-Nik
>      >
>      >On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>      >     > wrote:
>      >
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling
>      >>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >>Hi all,
>      >>
>      >>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
>      >>discussions.
>      >>
>      >>I would propose to say:
>      >>OLD
>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain
>     over
>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
>      >>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
>      >>NEW
>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain
>     over
>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in
>     potentially
>      >>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular
>      >>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized "
>      >>
>      >>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there
>     is the
>      >>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answer
>      >>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be
>     troublesome to
>      >>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
>      >> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to),
>     though
>      >>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.
>      >>
>      >>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the
>     paragraph
>      >>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend
>     existing
>      >>standard":
>      >>
>      >>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to
>     be used
>      >>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area
>     about the
>      >>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a
>     encapsulation
>      >>scheme for DOTS."
>      >>
>      >>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the
>     Transport Area
>      >>will talk to each other in order to double check your
>     requirements and
>      >>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.
>      >>
>      >>Let me know your feedback.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some
>      >>proponents chime in before making an update.
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>Thank you,
>      >>Kathleen
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>  Martin
>      >>
>      >>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>      >>
>      >>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>      >>
>      >>-----------------------------------
>      >>Roland Dobbins >
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>--
>      >>
>      >>Best regards,
>      >>Kathleen
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >--
>      >
>      >Best regards,
>      >Kathleen
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen


From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:19:57 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956A11A8726; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 mdmrs09Zj4mb; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31C381AD06A; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgez8 with SMTP id z8so7236100wge.0; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JJj0u4fodcjPpswW2kwNz89GJGnNbMK7niL2Jb9yOw0=; b=nPp1M3M6DutrA6GhGuEmsSyT6uHb3X3vBwKLMnjiWyJYUma9S57jNiKYoEJcaosFxy akITUKFrhjLNVGqgP600M1X22Tvrr0///4GphW92y/yv+79qObJJO5lNV8uIw+qrkJfW VRYu6WQPCHtngksJ+pXe29TGZb5O8uRAE+ZL47TAVRpvkcDZsRNNT1c3CmNN1LOYK201 kMmilasgsHpWOd+X0tE33mc6/ZDPdvOpHinJN40JMlwtV+DfbTfOLrMU7jwe6nmjd0BW bFKzJTakrQM2qpedK0tFvemWEUirfcBmcFyOETVK+zlOP7WOpO24iPwjgPWdOHeZ49Ki DrNQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.96.167 with SMTP id dt7mr19809736wib.80.1434035992978; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5579A5BA.4060404@gmail.com>
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>      <5579A5BA.4060404@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:19:52 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: Martin Stiemerling 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c0700f4ebf805183f85f2
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , "Teague, Nik" , "dots@ietf.org" , The IESG 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:19:56 -0000

--f46d043c0700f4ebf805183f85f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you for catching the text problems, that has been fixed.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling 
wrote:

> Thanks & I have cleared.
>
> The text after the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in the tracker.
>
>   Martin
>
> Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> The updates have been made.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik > > wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Yes I think the text is good.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>     -Nik
>>
>>     On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>>     >     > wrote:
>>
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik
>>      >> wrote:
>>      >
>>      >Hi,
>>      >
>>      >I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to speci=
fically
>>     call out
>>      >working with the Transport Area.
>>      >
>>      >I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the
>>     old/new makes
>>      >it easy.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >Thanks,
>>      >Kathleen
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >Thanks,
>>      >
>>      >-Nik
>>      >
>>      >On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>>      >>     > wrote:
>>      >
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling
>>      >>> wrote:
>>      >>
>>      >>Hi all,
>>      >>
>>      >>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
>>      >>discussions.
>>      >>
>>      >>I would propose to say:
>>      >>OLD
>>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain
>>     over
>>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostil=
e
>>      >>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalize=
d"
>>      >>NEW
>>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain
>>     over
>>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in
>>     potentially
>>      >>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in
>> particular
>>      >>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalize=
d
>> "
>>      >>
>>      >>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there
>>     is the
>>      >>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answe=
r
>>      >>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be
>>     troublesome to
>>      >>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
>>      >> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to),
>>     though
>>      >>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.
>>      >>
>>      >>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the
>>     paragraph
>>      >>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend
>>     existing
>>      >>standard":
>>      >>
>>      >>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to
>>     be used
>>      >>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area
>>     about the
>>      >>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a
>>     encapsulation
>>      >>scheme for DOTS."
>>      >>
>>      >>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the
>>     Transport Area
>>      >>will talk to each other in order to double check your
>>     requirements and
>>      >>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment.
>>      >>
>>      >>Let me know your feedback.
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some
>>      >>proponents chime in before making an update.
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>Thank you,
>>      >>Kathleen
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>  Martin
>>      >>
>>      >>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>>      >>
>>      >>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>>      >>
>>      >>-----------------------------------
>>      >>Roland Dobbins >
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>--
>>      >>
>>      >>Best regards,
>>      >>Kathleen
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >--
>>      >
>>      >Best regards,
>>      >Kathleen
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>


--=20

Best regards,
Kathleen

--f46d043c0700f4ebf805183f85f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Thank you for catching the text problems, that has been fi=
xed.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:=
14 AM, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks & I have cleared.



The text after the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in the tracker.


=C2=A0 Martin



Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:



Martin,



The updates have been made.



Thank you,

Kathleen



On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com

<mailto:nteagu=
e@verisign.com>> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hi,



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Yes I think the text is good.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thanks!



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Nik



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0><nteague@verisign.com <mailto:nteague@verisign.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Hi,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agr=
eement to specifically

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 call out

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>working with the Transport Area.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>If Martin's text is good, I can just make the u=
pdate as the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 old/new makes

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>it easy.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>-Nik

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"<=
br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0><kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stieme=
rling

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>><mls.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:mls.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Hi all,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>I believe that I have now understood the settin=
g, after the email

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>discussions.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>I would propose to say:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>OLD

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"These elements may be communicating inter=
-domain or intra-domain

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 over

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>links that may be congested by attack traffic r=
esulting in hostile

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>conditions for connection oriented approaches a=
nd more generalized"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>NEW

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"These elements may be communicating inter=
-domain or intra-domain

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 over

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>links that may be congested by attack traffic r=
esulting in

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 potentially

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>hostile conditions for any type of upstream sig=
naling, in particular

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>transport protocols that yield to congestion, a=
nd more generalized "

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This is capturing more the situation we have ri=
ght now that there

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 is the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might n=
ot the right answer

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>without ruling them out. Further, a congested l=
ink will be

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 troublesome to

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> link, as the link is anyway out of free resour=
ces (or close to),

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 though

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>signaling and attack traffic might travel the o=
pposite direction.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Further, I would add a paragraph along these li=
nes, after the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 paragraph

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>starting with "The WG will, where appropri=
ate, reuse or extend

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 existing

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>standard":

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"The WG will document requirements for the=
 transport protocol to

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 be used

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the =
Transport Area

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 about the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>requirements and, if applicable, any new develo=
pment of a

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 encapsulation

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>scheme for DOTS."

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This is to ensure that early in the process, DO=
TS and the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Transport Area

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>will talk to each other in order to double chec=
k your

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 requirements and

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>what is possible in a (congested downstream) ne=
twork environment.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Let me know your feedback.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I=
9;d like to hear some

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>proponents chime in before making an update.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Thank you,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 Martin

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:=


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This should read 'transport(s)', apolog=
ies for the confusion.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>-----------------------------------

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net <mailto:rdobbins@arbor.net>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>--

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Best regards,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>--

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Best regards,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>









--



Best regards,

Kathleen







-- 

Best regards,
Kath=
leen




--f46d043c0700f4ebf805183f85f2--


From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:25:16 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A89E1ACE8A; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 LkXT-vnIJFkO; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D551A90B9; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Martin Stiemerling" 
To: "The IESG" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150611152351.7096.2067.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:23:51 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:25:15 -0700
Cc: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:23:52 -0000

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing my issue.



From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:25:45 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839051ACD22; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 tUOC2a14VjQA; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vn0-x22b.google.com (mail-vn0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 438311A8738; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbf190 with SMTP id f190so1521696vnb.0; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/5LlOd5WDxD2TZ9XgV3BdIgJzK8U00PU8qec90OMYMc=; b=0joEi+/hok5oN2psd3kjlc/P2+WTPMF+pLO6TSiDurfeLb2WvI4UmyCT0ZZSjRcEwk Vdc8j2WVhq89UrkaxBleNfIdOr1uR4immfy58sD8rR47NuA+8cv7sFvpgihW+PHBMAnF ibSQOAkb3Up9geLLJjPMXCM8rGKWPMk4OZmTK/zJCMGbFWKNr4iXSf0YcFnh9UFHn6mi aJDjRkDy5woYzVe+8tBn2vbb2K+wTL0DGDTZ6bVjMw7YH62PLdNuFiHHefViTlkgjKO7 gHyKQ/PpTpee2vAUObHCGhqCoxXLCJcnVfpMQly1HKB74wChzkHKOj+UUdA7Hy6bhd4j qNmw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.118.67 with SMTP id kk3mr7561608vdb.24.1434036257586; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.195.6 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>      <5579A5BA.4060404@gmail.com> 
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:24:17 -0500
Message-ID: 
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
To: Kathleen Moriarty 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011843daba845a05183f95bb
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:25:43 -0700
Cc: Roland Dobbins , Martin Stiemerling , The IESG , "dots@ietf.org" , "Teague, Nik" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:24:21 -0000

--089e011843daba845a05183f95bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, Kathleen,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for catching the text problems, that has been fixed.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks & I have cleared.
>
>
Just to tie up any loose ends, I was only a No Objection because Martin
already had a Discuss on that point, but the new text works for me as well.

So, now I Really Don't Object.

Thank,

Spencer


> The text after the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in the tracker.
>>
>>   Martin
>>
>> Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:
>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> The updates have been made.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Kathleen
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Yes I think the text is good.
>>>
>>>     Thanks!
>>>
>>>     -Nik
>>>
>>>     On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>>>     >>     > wrote:
>>>
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik
>>>      >> wrote:
>>>      >
>>>      >Hi,
>>>      >
>>>      >I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to spec=
ifically
>>>     call out
>>>      >working with the Transport Area.
>>>      >
>>>      >I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the
>>>     old/new makes
>>>      >it easy.
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >Thanks,
>>>      >Kathleen
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >Thanks,
>>>      >
>>>      >-Nik
>>>      >
>>>      >On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>>>      >>>     > wrote:
>>>      >
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling
>>>      >>> wrote:
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Hi all,
>>>      >>
>>>      >>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the emai=
l
>>>      >>discussions.
>>>      >>
>>>      >>I would propose to say:
>>>      >>OLD
>>>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domai=
n
>>>     over
>>>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hosti=
le
>>>      >>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more
>>> generalized"
>>>      >>NEW
>>>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domai=
n
>>>     over
>>>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in
>>>     potentially
>>>      >>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in
>>> particular
>>>      >>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more
>>> generalized "
>>>      >>
>>>      >>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that ther=
e
>>>     is the
>>>      >>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right answ=
er
>>>      >>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be
>>>     troublesome to
>>>      >>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
>>>      >> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to)=
,
>>>     though
>>>      >>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction=
.
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the
>>>     paragraph
>>>      >>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend
>>>     existing
>>>      >>standard":
>>>      >>
>>>      >>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to
>>>     be used
>>>      >>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area
>>>     about the
>>>      >>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a
>>>     encapsulation
>>>      >>scheme for DOTS."
>>>      >>
>>>      >>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the
>>>     Transport Area
>>>      >>will talk to each other in order to double check your
>>>     requirements and
>>>      >>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environment=
.
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Let me know your feedback.
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some
>>>      >>proponents chime in before making an update.
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Thank you,
>>>      >>Kathleen
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>  Martin
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>>>      >>
>>>      >>-----------------------------------
>>>      >>Roland Dobbins >
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>--
>>>      >>
>>>      >>Best regards,
>>>      >>Kathleen
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >>
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >--
>>>      >
>>>      >Best regards,
>>>      >Kathleen
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Kathleen
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>

--089e011843daba845a05183f95bb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hi, Kathleen,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for catching the text prob=
lems, that has been fixed.

Thank you,
Kathleen=


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling <m=
ls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
T=
hanks & I have cleared.

Just to tie up any loose ends, I was only a No Object=
ion because Martin already had a Discuss on that point, but the new text wo=
rks for me as well.=C2=A0

So, now I Really Don'=
;t Object.

Thank,

Spencer=

=C2=A0
The text after the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in t=
he tracker.



=C2=A0 Martin



Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:



Martin,



The updates have been made.



Thank you,

Kathleen



On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com

<mailto:nteagu=
e@verisign.com>> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hi,



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Yes I think the text is good.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thanks!



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Nik



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0><nteague@verisign.com <mailto:nteague@verisign.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Hi,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agr=
eement to specifically

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 call out

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>working with the Transport Area.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>If Martin's text is good, I can just make the u=
pdate as the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 old/new makes

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>it easy.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>-Nik

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"<=
br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0><kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stieme=
rling

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>><mls.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:mls.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Hi all,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>I believe that I have now understood the settin=
g, after the email

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>discussions.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>I would propose to say:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>OLD

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"These elements may be communicating inter=
-domain or intra-domain

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 over

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>links that may be congested by attack traffic r=
esulting in hostile

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>conditions for connection oriented approaches a=
nd more generalized"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>NEW

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"These elements may be communicating inter=
-domain or intra-domain

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 over

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>links that may be congested by attack traffic r=
esulting in

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 potentially

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>hostile conditions for any type of upstream sig=
naling, in particular

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>transport protocols that yield to congestion, a=
nd more generalized "

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This is capturing more the situation we have ri=
ght now that there

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 is the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might n=
ot the right answer

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>without ruling them out. Further, a congested l=
ink will be

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 troublesome to

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> link, as the link is anyway out of free resour=
ces (or close to),

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 though

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>signaling and attack traffic might travel the o=
pposite direction.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Further, I would add a paragraph along these li=
nes, after the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 paragraph

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>starting with "The WG will, where appropri=
ate, reuse or extend

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 existing

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>standard":

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"The WG will document requirements for the=
 transport protocol to

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 be used

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the =
Transport Area

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 about the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>requirements and, if applicable, any new develo=
pment of a

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 encapsulation

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>scheme for DOTS."

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This is to ensure that early in the process, DO=
TS and the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Transport Area

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>will talk to each other in order to double chec=
k your

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 requirements and

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>what is possible in a (congested downstream) ne=
twork environment.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Let me know your feedback.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I=
9;d like to hear some

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>proponents chime in before making an update.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Thank you,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 Martin

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:=


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This should read 'transport(s)', apolog=
ies for the confusion.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>-----------------------------------

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net <mailto:rdobbins@arbor.net>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>--

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Best regards,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>--

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Best regards,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>









--



Best regards,

Kathleen







-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen







--089e011843daba845a05183f95bb--


From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:28:25 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CBA1B2B32; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 aifLuRBZkLF6; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 100571B2B37; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so7279819wgb.3; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=rWi7U2Yq3u9RyH+znKI5JvMsygqv2a2IFhuFX7eZf+s=; b=d9/cCBw9Mk5IuFffQjyWC9mhR8p7myMRL97r+cPZH7pjWjVsHoQbBkAAyEat459Vp1 w0wD3U6TX0g+FKQd3RhkW+EnvqAFq2Dw9M6OidbO+RB7HqcuqcMR+U9pvpzrcnsoVaeM Gm54prOIzk5yWq2+QtOHEaKy5AxlvcAa8u6tCvGKCeyv3KFQu43pA4EKvotwiyDXhleA hj9DkHJn/uMynqThMkveMQmJDpr+BRH7/mY+tXqFUKgFnIhjf+HbCx97BprRtVWf+MVN wRLgFEGqxHlE+hlyFvgJ6qMM6YH3jatQ3StCoV4QWCHhy530H2KmzighvJzjmDWGA556 tBCg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.94.106 with SMTP id db10mr30548217wib.1.1434036499824; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.148.148 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com>      <5579A5BA.4060404@gmail.com>  
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:28:19 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bddc62ac67b05183fa40f
Archived-At: 
Cc: Roland Dobbins , Martin Stiemerling , The IESG , "dots@ietf.org" , "Teague, Nik" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:28:23 -0000

--f46d043bddc62ac67b05183fa40f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks, Spencer!

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Kathleen,
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <
> kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for catching the text problems, that has been fixed.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kathleen
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks & I have cleared.
>>
>>
> Just to tie up any loose ends, I was only a No Objection because Martin
> already had a Discuss on that point, but the new text works for me as wel=
l.
>
> So, now I Really Don't Object.
>
> Thank,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>> The text after the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in the tracker.
>>>
>>>   Martin
>>>
>>> Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:
>>>
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> The updates have been made.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Kathleen
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     Yes I think the text is good.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>     -Nik
>>>>
>>>>     On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>>>>     >>>     > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik
>>>>      >> wrote:
>>>>      >
>>>>      >Hi,
>>>>      >
>>>>      >I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agreement to spe=
cifically
>>>>     call out
>>>>      >working with the Transport Area.
>>>>      >
>>>>      >I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >If Martin's text is good, I can just make the update as the
>>>>     old/new makes
>>>>      >it easy.
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >Thanks,
>>>>      >Kathleen
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >Thanks,
>>>>      >
>>>>      >-Nik
>>>>      >
>>>>      >On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"
>>>>      >>>>     > wrote:
>>>>      >
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling
>>>>      >>> wrote:
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Hi all,
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the ema=
il
>>>>      >>discussions.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>I would propose to say:
>>>>      >>OLD
>>>>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-doma=
in
>>>>     over
>>>>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in
>>>> hostile
>>>>      >>conditions for connection oriented approaches and more
>>>> generalized"
>>>>      >>NEW
>>>>      >>"These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-doma=
in
>>>>     over
>>>>      >>links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in
>>>>     potentially
>>>>      >>hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in
>>>> particular
>>>>      >>transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more
>>>> generalized "
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>This is capturing more the situation we have right now that the=
re
>>>>     is the
>>>>      >>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right
>>>> answer
>>>>      >>without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be
>>>>     troublesome to
>>>>      >>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
>>>>      >> link, as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to=
),
>>>>     though
>>>>      >>signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite directio=
n.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the
>>>>     paragraph
>>>>      >>starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend
>>>>     existing
>>>>      >>standard":
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>"The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol t=
o
>>>>     be used
>>>>      >>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area
>>>>     about the
>>>>      >>requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a
>>>>     encapsulation
>>>>      >>scheme for DOTS."
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the
>>>>     Transport Area
>>>>      >>will talk to each other in order to double check your
>>>>     requirements and
>>>>      >>what is possible in a (congested downstream) network environmen=
t.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Let me know your feedback.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear som=
e
>>>>      >>proponents chime in before making an update.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Thank you,
>>>>      >>Kathleen
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>  Martin
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>-----------------------------------
>>>>      >>Roland Dobbins >
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>--
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>Best regards,
>>>>      >>Kathleen
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >>
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >--
>>>>      >
>>>>      >Best regards,
>>>>      >Kathleen
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>      >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Kathleen
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathleen
>>
>
>


--=20

Best regards,
Kathleen

--f46d043bddc62ac67b05183fa40f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Thanks, Spencer!

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IE=
TF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Kathleen,

On Thu, Jun 11, 2=
015 at 10:19 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@=
gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for catching the text problems, that has been fixed.
Thank you,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1=
1:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
=

Thanks & I have cleared.

Just to tie up=
 any loose ends, I was only a No Objection because Martin already had a Dis=
cuss on that point, but the new text works for me as well.=C2=A0
=

So, now I Really Don't Object.

=
Thank,

Spencer
=
=C2=A0
=

The text aft=
er the OLD/NEW change has a formatting issue in the tracker.



=C2=A0 Martin



Am 11.06.15 um 16:52 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty:



Martin,



The updates have been made.



Thank you,

Kathleen



On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Teague, Nik <nteague@verisign.com

<mailto:nteagu=
e@verisign.com>> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hi,



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Yes I think the text is good.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thanks!



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Nik



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On 11/06/2015 15:33, "Kathleen Moriarty"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Teague, Nik

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0><nteague@verisign.com <mailto:nteague@verisign.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Hi,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>I=E2=80=99m fine with the clarification and the agr=
eement to specifically

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 call out

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>working with the Transport Area.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>I=E2=80=99ll get an updated charter out asap.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>If Martin's text is good, I can just make the u=
pdate as the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 old/new makes

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>it easy.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Thanks,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>-Nik

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>On 11/06/2015 15:28, "Kathleen Moriarty"<=
br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0><kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 <mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stieme=
rling

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>><mls.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:mls.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Hi all,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>I believe that I have now understood the settin=
g, after the email

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>discussions.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>I would propose to say:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>OLD

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"These elements may be communicating inter=
-domain or intra-domain

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 over

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>links that may be congested by attack traffic r=
esulting in hostile

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>conditions for connection oriented approaches a=
nd more generalized"

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>NEW

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"These elements may be communicating inter=
-domain or intra-domain

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 over

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>links that may be congested by attack traffic r=
esulting in

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 potentially

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>hostile conditions for any type of upstream sig=
naling, in particular

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>transport protocols that yield to congestion, a=
nd more generalized "

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This is capturing more the situation we have ri=
ght now that there

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 is the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might n=
ot the right answer

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>without ruling them out. Further, a congested l=
ink will be

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 troublesome to

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>any type of transport/signaling crossing this
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> link, as the link is anyway out of free resour=
ces (or close to),

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 though

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>signaling and attack traffic might travel the o=
pposite direction.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Further, I would add a paragraph along these li=
nes, after the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 paragraph

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>starting with "The WG will, where appropri=
ate, reuse or extend

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 existing

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>standard":

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>"The WG will document requirements for the=
 transport protocol to

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 be used

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the =
Transport Area

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 about the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>requirements and, if applicable, any new develo=
pment of a

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 encapsulation

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>scheme for DOTS."

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This is to ensure that early in the process, DO=
TS and the

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Transport Area

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>will talk to each other in order to double chec=
k your

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 requirements and

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>what is possible in a (congested downstream) ne=
twork environment.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Let me know your feedback.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I=
9;d like to hear some

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>proponents chime in before making an update.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Thank you,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 Martin

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:=


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>This should read 'transport(s)', apolog=
ies for the confusion.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>-----------------------------------

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net <mailto:rdobbins@arbor.net>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>--

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Best regards,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>--

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Best regards,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>Kathleen

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>









--



Best regards,

Kathleen







<=
font color=3D"#888888">-- 

Best regards,<=
/div>
Kathleen










-- 

Best regards,
Kath=
leen




--f46d043bddc62ac67b05183fa40f--


From nobody Thu Jun 11 10:26:00 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97E31A87EF; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.664
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 aSiyLAxa9PIu; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D8FA1A87DE; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.211] (ip-77-24-108-78.web.vodafone.de [77.24.108.78]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7BBD638A1; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:25:53 +0200 (CEST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1;  q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=q3h8XuNFwMFGZ8Xh0Sq7+mzHqHpAubFOl7HYtgkZ8dHSq/TSRbr2p+OW7bSKsqX3MO2J/gELJStWfoEW53OLuONgAlLk8T8k9vK2g+GzAcmmRrYZFACFGdnbMhwNKybWk24h2EFgf9/DkoFy4hVe7CRLEWqMQXhkQVVojXyy0E0=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
Message-ID: <5579C4A1.8040506@gondrom.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:25:53 +0200
From: Tobias Gondrom 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, mls.ietf@gmail.com
References: <20150610195408.18826.55794.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>    <55799A03.20002@gmail.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030500040707080607080608"
Archived-At: 
Cc: rdobbins@arbor.net, dots@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:25:59 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030500040707080607080608
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree. Works for me.
Best, Tobias


On 11/06/15 16:28, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Martin Stiemerling 
> > wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     I believe that I have now understood the setting, after the email
>     discussions.
>
>     I would propose to say:
>     OLD
>     "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
>     links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
>     conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized"
>     NEW
>     "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
>     links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
>     hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in
>     particular transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more
>     generalized "
>
>     This is capturing more the situation we have right now that there
>     is the assumption that protocols, such as TCP, might not the right
>     answer without ruling them out. Further, a congested link will be
>     troublesome to any type of transport/signaling crossing this link,
>     as the link is anyway out of free resources (or close to), though
>     signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite direction.
>
>     Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after the
>     paragraph starting with "The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or
>     extend existing standard":
>
>     "The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to
>     be used for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport
>     Area about the requirements and, if applicable, any new
>     development of a encapsulation scheme for DOTS."
>
>     This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the
>     Transport Area will talk to each other in order to double check
>     your requirements and what is possible in a (congested downstream)
>     network environment.
>
>     Let me know your feedback.
>
>
> The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear some 
> proponents chime in before making an update.
>
> Thank you,
> Kathleen
>
>
>       Martin
>
>     Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
>
>
>         On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>             Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),
>
>
>         This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the confusion.
>
>         -----------------------------------
>         Roland Dobbins >
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


--------------030500040707080607080608
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


  
    
  
  
    I agree. Works for me. 

      Best, Tobias

      

    

    
On 11/06/15 16:28, Kathleen Moriarty
      wrote:

    

    

      


        


          
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM,
            Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

            
Hi all,

              

              I believe that I have now understood the setting, after
              the email discussions.

              

              I would propose to say:

              OLD

                "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or
                intra-domain over

                links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting
                in hostile

                conditions for connection oriented approaches and more
                generalized"

              
              NEW

                "These elements may be communicating inter-domain or
                intra-domain over

              
              links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in
              potentially

              hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in
              particular transport protocols that yield to congestion,
              and more generalized "

              

              This is capturing more the situation we have right now
              that there is the assumption that protocols, such as TCP,
              might not the right answer without ruling them out.
              Further, a congested link will be troublesome to any type
              of transport/signaling crossing this link, as the link is
              anyway out of free resources (or close to), though
              signaling and attack traffic might travel the opposite
              direction.

              

              Further, I would add a paragraph along these lines, after
              the paragraph starting with "The WG will, where
              appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard":

              

              "The WG will document requirements for the transport
              protocol to be used for the signaling of DOTS and consult
              with the Transport Area about the requirements and, if
              applicable, any new development of a encapsulation scheme
              for DOTS."

              

              This is to ensure that early in the process, DOTS and the
              Transport Area will talk to each other in order to double
              check your requirements and what is possible in a
              (congested downstream) network environment.

              

              Let me know your feedback.

            

            


            

            
The suggestions look reasonable to me, but I'd like to
              hear some proponents chime in before making an update.

            


            

            
Thank you,

            
Kathleen 

            

              

                Martin

              

              Am 11.06.15 um 06:20 schrieb Roland Dobbins:
              

                


                  

                    

                    On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Roland Dobbins wrote:

                    

                    

                      Concur, with the caveat of protocol(s),

                    

                    

                    This should read 'transport(s)', apologies for the
                    confusion.

                    

                    -----------------------------------

                    Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>

                    

                  

                  

                

              

            

          

          

          

          


          

          -- 

          

            


              
Best regards,

              
Kathleen

            

          

        

      

      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


    

    

  


--------------030500040707080607080608--


From nobody Fri Jun 12 01:28:25 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671511A88C1 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 PSlDDJKSPXgO for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58F6F1A88BF for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbki1 with SMTP id ki1so20311788pdb.1 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version; bh=Kk8o/VVIOd7J+99rpbnXwlmx2Yd7Zd9FsuDgHCfjA2c=; b=SovHAWvmNpwrA/+o+c9sF5Si5efSUS/VbNDz1YckQq46d+vypnR3gqyz8SXHlJchch q7wtYR5qAwhZXJbJD2JMKK+uO4e66oaH0QcJQY+x3swe+3lPNVi/aL5mGImph/3b0+kw C/u+IwOjSHLes7Yf4V1vZUzP6vKKl8uzRpl2Y=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=Kk8o/VVIOd7J+99rpbnXwlmx2Yd7Zd9FsuDgHCfjA2c=; b=AW6GGSqdU0fk45icz9f9ulFAwg3h6gjgkJqvzRRm6ri6IYADL050WEtTsO+p4u/O3D wxPf8uR/54Vj+1cpxsou5TFrJwP95hf6cu6Cm1HU/jfmYzrexAGth/of0/A85guG+cA0 7m8sPomFwKXPNYJ5gzKTmqfw2/peAej4ksDZv+UiAVkCUBSTXRk7NhTmg7a68rNqgZKz ERFatmMYEdZ5Pp3PSqC4u/48GtMpqzdI0+xnbjCecMjdazlESHvdB5+G2afet54HQEgg n7dKMdBa03ggZ3/foJV+QI67TyImC910+l+f4kEaEjmPlZ5cGtecn+wSGAIBRslHDZA+ GQ7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmC2PDaI83yBGDpnQh+dbMc96fmg7Rv0hQyZyb+rCw8CViBh5t1rNerMEoM/9CJIUsRoN0h
X-Received: by 10.67.8.71 with SMTP id di7mr21615486pad.46.1434097702908; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c10sm2823528pbu.81.2015.06.12.01.28.20 for  (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:28:16 +0700
Message-ID: 
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - update with transport evaluation added
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:28:24 -0000

On 11 Jun 2015, at 21:14, Teague, Nik wrote:

> Do we believe this to be adequate or is more required?

This looks good to me.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Fri Jun 12 01:51:49 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B0E1A8984 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 HTdFHfAydPz6 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EC441A8979 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padev16 with SMTP id ev16so19229138pad.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type; bh=SavlE6w+WPQWQK/wV+dnjCSlw34rothilunUMM2aICM=; b=RNS1CDfmUBCfi2pna4YUiboshJWwToPvKvMi8veAuS/j7Pzuu+rxXxhWZa7pw76P+b wXjx6wEd32p63N7undNv6f6Iykbmv4IXcn4qtvVneBAkSUrrt8/QdDUcDF6pOIIajYsU KeAXAXxOCz93bGYrCsS8y6QzxtbA1k+4gZk1w=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=SavlE6w+WPQWQK/wV+dnjCSlw34rothilunUMM2aICM=; b=VqNJtYAkERzRLdrPacJZuFjDSHiINVRbhZiQmTUMES1hZM91HvNfknZeGyW9m9tb+a 038b/ss24ZVdjcB4lHvG+V2CszOnMs1pRt6g38oa/eVTHCW8Xp3f3jcwly9rPzujrf5t rc4C1BbS3+tYsVhy32Ovt9ztUNNoVgCVve4A/1HLtgV5bnzB0z0ZYsEZxp+vXaE2VwVf Rs+LOL3EbR6eY8Vi9Zy/gMEkfo26uxMMBKjG+2hqtJ8derRGLhdvs0IneYLL/hwA2E1C ++Tnu2B/MEWrLwkV1hKenpIUtett8JguKA8kR606n4tur8uesP4ie9dT75xAA6D8N7ys VIOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIUZkxWBNXX6bVrMx5mrkmVRnG/Jrixb1LaK6HY2JQJL/f6Hviox6iuxSA4gl19CNddEnL
X-Received: by 10.70.40.164 with SMTP id y4mr21552856pdk.25.1434099101499; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.136] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id os7sm2923122pdb.51.2015.06.12.01.51.38 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "The IESG" 
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:51:35 +0700
Message-ID: <1F8DBE8F-7D8C-4E17-8BF3-77DC8FB63DAC@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150611144641.9092.36239.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150611144641.9092.36239.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Cc: Benoit Claise , dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:51:47 -0000

On 11 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Benoit Claise wrote:

> Sharing IPFIX data between domains is not a reality today,

IPFIX (and NetFlow, and other flow telemetry) is in some cases shared 
between domains today; I think what you're saying here is that there's 
no AAA nor built-in mechanism for controlling what's exported.  It's 
done ad-hoc.

This is true, but it isn't a barrier to achieving the DOTS mandate.

The reference to IPFIX within the DOTS charter is in the context of the 
IPFIX traffic classification model and format being an example of a 
classification format which might be used within the context of a DOTS 
mitigation request and/or subsequent response.

> see "Feedback between participating elements is required for increased
> awareness supporting effective decision making.", it remains to be 
> seen
> if elements from different domains will communicate...

Actually, this is a core requirement; for example, in the case of an 
endpoint enterprise network signaling southbound to an upstream transit 
provider or MSSP cloud overlay provider to initiate DDoS mitigation to 
protect the endpoint network's Internet-facing properties.  It is in 
fact the raison d'etre for DOTS.

Another example would be a transit provider signaling southbound to a 
downstream wireline broadband access provider to ask the access provider 
to squelch outbound DDoS traffic emanating from one of its 
end-customers.

> Don't make the scope too big.

There's a certain plateau of functionality required in order to make 
DOTS useful and deployable on production networks.  Inter-domain 
communications falls into that category - otherwise, there's little need 
for DOTS in the first place.

> ========================
> Btw, any link with BGP Flow Spec to block the attack?

Flowspec, or S/RTBH, or IDMS, or other forms of mitigation would be a 
result of DOTS signaling, not part of DOTS itself.  For example, a 
hosting provider may initiate a DOTS request to its upstream transit 
providers to block DDoS traffic identifiable with certain classifiers 
within their networks; whether the upstreams respond via flowspec, or 
S/RTBH, or IDMS, or scripting-generated/-deployed ACLs, et. al. is a 
decision made by said upstreams outside of the scope of DOTS itself.

Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, we can speculate that there 
might be some form of abstracted requested mitigation action in a DOTS 
request - say, 'block sources', or 'block traffic matching the specified 
classifier based upon 5-tuple towards this particular destination IP 
address', or 'drop packets with the specified HTTP payload classifier 
originating from this particular netblock', or what-have-you.  These 
would be generic in nature, and the selection of suitable mitigation 
mechanisms in order to fulfill the parameters of the request would be 
determined by actual responder.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Fri Jun 12 04:11:59 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CE21A9092; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 c1uPAHN0-y11; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E962A1A9080; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3171; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434106860; x=1435316460; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aSxzgJK5JLB665cF2ioYYXqJLNW5w62jtzrcuK40JB0=; b=HM9VvvjOs7Ym3kFBxqv3z2BX7FazApwbdkZoJYZJMLcqdnc2S6FdFkm6 GvGKco+Iq6XbhpA+3P+fgKeZnkNB2rlizR0crD95hwEwD6BRjpCdZv6dw 5O6FExVFu9uj19j39FPzk/QNHKDAS8MQeXeybV/UU26jBn14WypPUMH6x 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoBAANu3pV/xbLJq1cg2RfxU0CggIRAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDOEABEAsOCgkWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwBBQIBAYgr1gQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiLQ4RTMweELQEEhnqKColxhB2IFo9yJmOBKBwVgT88MYJHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,601,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="541148656"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jun 2015 11:00:58 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5CB0vc1023282; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:00:57 GMT
Message-ID: <557ABBE9.1020805@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:00:57 +0200
From: Benoit Claise 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roland Dobbins , The IESG 
References: <20150611144641.9092.36239.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1F8DBE8F-7D8C-4E17-8BF3-77DC8FB63DAC@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <1F8DBE8F-7D8C-4E17-8BF3-77DC8FB63DAC@arbor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 04:11:58 -0700
Cc: dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:01:02 -0000

Roland,

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards, Benoit
>
> On 11 Jun 2015, at 21:46, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
>> Sharing IPFIX data between domains is not a reality today,
>
> IPFIX (and NetFlow, and other flow telemetry) is in some cases shared 
> between domains today; I think what you're saying here is that there's 
> no AAA nor built-in mechanism for controlling what's exported.  It's 
> done ad-hoc.
>
> This is true, but it isn't a barrier to achieving the DOTS mandate.
>
> The reference to IPFIX within the DOTS charter is in the context of 
> the IPFIX traffic classification model and format being an example of 
> a classification format which might be used within the context of a 
> DOTS mitigation request and/or subsequent response.
>
>> see "Feedback between participating elements is required for increased
>> awareness supporting effective decision making.", it remains to be seen
>> if elements from different domains will communicate...
>
> Actually, this is a core requirement; for example, in the case of an 
> endpoint enterprise network signaling southbound to an upstream 
> transit provider or MSSP cloud overlay provider to initiate DDoS 
> mitigation to protect the endpoint network's Internet-facing 
> properties.  It is in fact the raison d'etre for DOTS.
>
> Another example would be a transit provider signaling southbound to a 
> downstream wireline broadband access provider to ask the access 
> provider to squelch outbound DDoS traffic emanating from one of its 
> end-customers.
>
>> Don't make the scope too big.
>
> There's a certain plateau of functionality required in order to make 
> DOTS useful and deployable on production networks. Inter-domain 
> communications falls into that category - otherwise, there's little 
> need for DOTS in the first place.
>
>> ========================
>> Btw, any link with BGP Flow Spec to block the attack?
>
> Flowspec, or S/RTBH, or IDMS, or other forms of mitigation would be a 
> result of DOTS signaling, not part of DOTS itself.  For example, a 
> hosting provider may initiate a DOTS request to its upstream transit 
> providers to block DDoS traffic identifiable with certain classifiers 
> within their networks; whether the upstreams respond via flowspec, or 
> S/RTBH, or IDMS, or scripting-generated/-deployed ACLs, et. al. is a 
> decision made by said upstreams outside of the scope of DOTS itself.
>
> Without getting too far ahead of ourselves, we can speculate that 
> there might be some form of abstracted requested mitigation action in 
> a DOTS request - say, 'block sources', or 'block traffic matching the 
> specified classifier based upon 5-tuple towards this particular 
> destination IP address', or 'drop packets with the specified HTTP 
> payload classifier originating from this particular netblock', or 
> what-have-you.  These would be generic in nature, and the selection of 
> suitable mitigation mechanisms in order to fulfill the parameters of 
> the request would be determined by actual responder.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins 
> .
>


From nobody Fri Jun 12 10:06:42 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06DA01A03A9; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 0JL6LHphDHUM; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F1A1A1B48; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG 
To: "IETF-Announce" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150612160109.14883.35497.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:01:09 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:06:29 -0700
Cc: dots WG 
Subject: [Dots] WG Review: DDoS Open Threat Signaling (dots)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 16:01:11 -0000

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Security Area. The IESG
has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2015-06-22.

DDoS Open Threat Signaling (dots)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG

Chairs:
  Roman Danyliw 

Assigned Area Director:
  Kathleen Moriarty 

Mailing list
  Address: dots@ietf.org
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=dots

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or
influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback 
and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger 
collaborative system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular
transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized 
signaling and  telemetry solutions.  Robustness under these conditions 
is paramount  while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, 
authorization,  privacy and data integrity.  Elements may be deployed as 
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS 
detection, classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or 
service provider based.  Should changing conditions necessitate altering 
the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of 
mitigation coverage, timely and  effective signaling of telemetry and 
current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is 
essential.  Feedback between participating elements is required for 
increased awareness supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated
templating and extension mechanisms).  Any modification of or extension 
to existing protocols must be in close coordination with the working 
groups responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in 
this working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and 
responsible Area Directors.  The WG may coordinate on a situationally
appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which
compliment the DOTS effort e.g. M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be used
for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the 
requirements and, if applicable, any new development of a encapsulation 
scheme for DOTS.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards
track specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS 
problem space.  While the resulting standards should be designed so they 
apply to network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, 
this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms 
directly related to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and 
mitigation, incorporating the general principles articulated in RFC5218
.  Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS
is intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in 
the near term.  The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, 
and providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices 
being the default in all cases.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, 
protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees 
fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models
to address the stated goals of the WG.

Milestones:
  Feb 2016 - Requirements/use case information document to IESG
  May 2016 - Transport document as proposed standard to IESG
  Jun 2016 - Data model document as proposed standard to IESG



From nobody Sun Jun 21 02:03:26 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936951A1BDD for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ek8Q08bROZ_s for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:03:24 -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 18AE61A1BDE for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.22]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id t5L93MkN024255 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 05:03:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1434877402; bh=5ju8ESSJQnxBxyJGKuGc38QBJjcIrpMETvUrlI/XVew=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=OxK1SbGd0Kn1hGJISF3X6C4Fo+ukpkHS+nFuI6FIrbYklBD1V1NZtgnc0zFaEdXY2 MJPt+Abf6y+zQI966RWGfo7v0X9w54nakuOLUfeO0pIklZox4wSrH2YNkQhiZx1uMO v9GAm8WSUcL3FwFJbuUtUArZsBj39Pt5W6cp/gOw=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by pawpaw.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1456) with ESMTP id t5L93Rv8002404 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 05:03:27 -0400
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 05:03:20 -0400
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Meeting slot for DOTS at IETF 93 
Thread-Index: AQHQrAAjr7SNKG/J4kuZCPgkwE07eA==
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:03:20 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD9498182@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: 
Subject: [Dots] Meeting slot for DOTS at IETF 93
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:03:25 -0000

Hello!
The preliminary IETF 93 agenda has been published.  DOTS is currently sched=
uled as follows:
TUESDAY, July 21, 2015
1740-1840  Afternoon Session III
Congress Hall II  SEC   dots   DDoS Open Threat Signaling WG
The meeting agenda will be forthcoming. =20

The charter for this proposed working group is summarized by the following =
proposed charter, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg0019=
5.html.  The IESG is accepting comments until 2015-06-22.

Roman=


From nobody Wed Jun 24 04:18:27 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FFB1B32D1; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 3pslhG9M58iN; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6751ACD04; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Martin Stiemerling" 
To: "The IESG" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150624101044.8378.11951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 03:10:44 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:18:25 -0700
Cc: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:10:46 -0000

Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

a remaining it:
s/a encapsulation/an encapsulation/



From nobody Wed Jun 24 08:01:38 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C75B1A1B05; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 PHjbDaKCszRO; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D99671A1AE3; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgqq4 with SMTP id q4so38785665wgq.1; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1ZS+ER8+XsFu6OuFpty00ChINFSKDz8L/zTmV/EB7Pw=; b=d7QNCt7/IOEkr82JGXO450j3s8e/VZ7vkbqf6HcNIi1wX3xPeUKM8gsz2eUZ8GY3z6 QG886jahVewy8nXjm4060GxDY4OmPxlH5rMCCM8QqWKzIQkIvbcGYYNnFKF3qdGk7mme mmlqALli/Wv/u1NnCKCuO5SipPA1vHwNwGc9FtaBs/w2vL/pwqCCnKFMWG43IQW1KC70 YfAw/fXM2aKIJw7Awe9nVxzlVLONPc8vekUTp9NUoapNTVyh0jb4+lLWBRy82jW4CUta sIz+BNWY2wuFqLZhvAcqsN+21Xh6eEkjOnGx8moU89rfD9u1WpY7mpl8ygKocaQd4Vzb Wz/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.222.230 with SMTP id qp6mr72189728wjc.70.1435158091682;  Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.188.134 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150624101044.8378.11951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150624101044.8378.11951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:01:31 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: Martin Stiemerling 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3bad8405921051944c822
Archived-At: 
Cc: The IESG , "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:01:34 -0000

--001a11c3bad8405921051944c822
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thanks, Martin!

I'm in transit, so I'll fix it tomorrow morning at the latest.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Martin Stiemerling 
wrote:

> Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-dots-00-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> a remaining it:
> s/a encapsulation/an encapsulation/
>
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

--001a11c3bad8405921051944c822
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Thanks, Martin!

I'm in transit, so =
I'll fix it tomorrow morning at the latest.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:10 AM, =
Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Stiemerling has entered the following ballot p=
osition for

charter-ietf-dots-00-05: No Objection



When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this

introductory paragraph, however.)







The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dot=
s/







----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



a remaining it:

s/a encapsulation/an encapsulation/









-- 

Best regards,
Kath=
leen




--001a11c3bad8405921051944c822--


From nobody Thu Jun 25 01:08:01 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103171B30DB; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:32:44 -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] autolearn=ham
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 i8UmUcbjZAkn; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD681B30DC; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Benoit Claise" 
To: "The IESG" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150625073241.31313.9518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:32:41 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:08:00 -0700
Cc: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] Benoit Claise's Yes on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:32:44 -0000

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This might be part of "* Document or Documents describing the problem
space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information
as the WG sees fit." but since you listed some deliverables and
milestones, it might be worth specifically mentioning an applicatibility
statement (or architecture) document explaining how all these elements
should communicate together for a complete DDoS service.



From nobody Thu Jun 25 05:22:34 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F161A0155; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WrJT-1hgq6g1; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFB411A0125; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbhy7 with SMTP id hy7so61027233wgb.2; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QLP4PvBxYDN1TtFMkBQYUYVCQGDArPUjASxt76SN5SI=; b=YDCWd2qfQaYKc/5oC37vRAclDDyV1EfRH3z6b5DJQzyZLSDFotgHXPzpGpACrXiBMd Qn+iBEvVt6SwVuoZOtrLuqzsQwZ4o3wKvc+nfPpu9HxMf/AhP/2j/VyrqFk6VY7wJpVg 8+Wj+Gmv5MtlrNuFpR03DfLP/7E74mVh7fdfjzwlHzGSgrYkkZ2SJ/UheyozGbJoWOhG HffghPU/8m2gecDYnuDZlJYDIjylvjGss1C7zGX9a/NDnJgF5uVRoyWBUwEpvP1w6DAl ky4D0MrTj3EA+RCttWByGvLEg2zcOc2sXBBc0/47uiG6NohMIZtOBdGzGyhpUAG0gzHx 4Rgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.248.196 with SMTP id yo4mr71709391wjc.86.1435234949724;  Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.188.134 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150625073241.31313.9518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150625073241.31313.9518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:22:29 -0400
Message-ID: 
From: Kathleen Moriarty 
To: Benoit Claise 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1eb05901d2051956ad12
Archived-At: 
Cc: The IESG , "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] Benoit Claise's Yes on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:22:33 -0000

--089e013d1eb05901d2051956ad12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi, Benoit.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Benoit Claise  wrote:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-dots-00-05: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This might be part of "* Document or Documents describing the problem
> space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information
> as the WG sees fit." but since you listed some deliverables and
> milestones, it might be worth specifically mentioning an applicatibility
> statement (or architecture) document explaining how all these elements
> should communicate together for a complete DDoS service.
>
> Thank you, that is a good point.  I added text in the core of the charter
saying this may be developed by the WG so that we can add a milestone later
without having to recharter.  If the main document covers it all, then we
won't need it.  They don't know if the solution work will require multiple
documents or not yet.



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

--089e013d1eb05901d2051956ad12
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hi, Benoit.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.c=
om> wrote:
Benoit Claise ha=
s entered the following ballot position for

charter-ietf-dots-00-05: Yes



When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all

email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this

introductory paragraph, however.)







The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dot=
s/







----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



This might be part of "* Document or Documents describing the problem<=
br>
space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying information
as the WG sees fit." but since you listed some deliverables and

milestones, it might be worth specifically mentioning an applicatibility
statement (or architecture) document explaining how all these elements

should communicate together for a complete DDoS service.


Thank you, that is a good point.=C2=A0 I added text i=
n the core of the charter saying this may be developed by the WG so that we=
 can add a milestone later without having to recharter.=C2=A0 If the main d=
ocument covers it all, then we won't need it.=C2=A0 They don't know=
 if the solution work will require multiple documents or not yet.=C2=A0



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen




--089e013d1eb05901d2051956ad12--


From nobody Thu Jun 25 05:44:14 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174031A011E; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.664
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 IHqP6-jxtNwU; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCC161A1A39; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.28.1.228] (unknown [212.234.161.1]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C666963516; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:44:05 +0200 (CEST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1;  q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=pVf+CI0cQkavQYPdznJ8gVjopPNW3GThtut2AiTCTEM8OJMbVLHF/0jMsND7KJwqqxFGoeWYwqpx9f3uPsdGcUI4QccZvmSibp92N0L44BZ4x0Ynb4Ra+gypQIh0VyCPM9o1phLpYqaHp4jOAu3jfb9IsRr7dMyMEEIZsCgxCaA=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:X-Priority:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
Message-ID: <558BF785.3010307@gondrom.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:43:49 +0200
From: Tobias Gondrom 
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, bclaise@cisco.com
X-Priority: 4 (Low)
References: <20150625073241.31313.9518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030605020607080205050305"
Archived-At: 
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] Benoit Claise's Yes on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:44:11 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030605020607080205050305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree. Good idea.
"Architecture ID" would be a good addition. Especially as a "maximum" 
solution might be a combination of various DOTS building blocks.
Best regards, Tobias


On 25/06/15 14:22, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Hi, Benoit.
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Benoit Claise  > wrote:
>
>     Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
>     charter-ietf-dots-00-05: Yes
>
>     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>     this
>     introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     This might be part of "* Document or Documents describing the problem
>     space, use cases, protocol requirements and other qualifying
>     information
>     as the WG sees fit." but since you listed some deliverables and
>     milestones, it might be worth specifically mentioning an
>     applicatibility
>     statement (or architecture) document explaining how all these elements
>     should communicate together for a complete DDoS service.
>
> Thank you, that is a good point.  I added text in the core of the 
> charter saying this may be developed by the WG so that we can add a 
> milestone later without having to recharter.  If the main document 
> covers it all, then we won't need it.  They don't know if the solution 
> work will require multiple documents or not yet.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


--------------030605020607080205050305
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


  
    
  
  
    I agree. Good idea. 

      "Architecture ID" would be a good addition. Especially as
    a "maximum" solution might be a combination of various DOTS building
    blocks. 

    Best regards, Tobias

    

    

    
On 25/06/15 14:22, Kathleen Moriarty
      wrote:

    

    

      
Hi, Benoit.
        


          
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:32 AM,
            Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
            wrote:

            
Benoit
              Claise has entered the following ballot position for

              charter-ietf-dots-00-05: Yes

              

              When responding, please keep the subject line intact and
              reply to all

              email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel
              free to cut this

              introductory paragraph, however.)

              

              

              

              The document, along with other ballot positions, can be
              found here:

              https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dots/

              

              

              

----------------------------------------------------------------------

              COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

              

              This might be part of "* Document or Documents describing
              the problem

              space, use cases, protocol requirements and other
              qualifying information

              as the WG sees fit." but since you listed some
              deliverables and

              milestones, it might be worth specifically mentioning an
              applicatibility

              statement (or architecture) document explaining how all
              these elements

              should communicate together for a complete DDoS service.

              

            

            
Thank you, that is a good point.  I added text in the
              core of the charter saying this may be developed by the WG
              so that we can add a milestone later without having to
              recharter.  If the main document covers it all, then we
              won't need it.  They don't know if the solution work will
              require multiple documents or not yet. 

          

          

          

          


          

          -- 

          

            


              
Best regards,

              
Kathleen

            

          

        

      

      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


    

    

  


--------------030605020607080205050305--


From nobody Fri Jun 26 09:30:01 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2DC1A0381; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 PRqA27d1neam; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873981A0387; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG 
To: "IETF-Announce" 
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4.p1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150626162524.4491.67420.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:25:24 -0700
Archived-At: 
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:30:00 -0700
Cc: dots WG 
Subject: [Dots] WG Action: Formed DDoS Open Threat Signaling (dots)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:25:26 -0000

A new IETF working group has been formed in the Security Area. For
additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chair.

DDoS Open Threat Signaling (dots)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG

Chairs:
  Roman Danyliw 

Assigned Area Director:
  Kathleen Moriarty 

Mailing list
  Address: dots@ietf.org
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/

Charter:

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or
influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback 
and mitigation individually or within the context of a larger 
collaborative system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in potentially
hostile conditions for any type of upstream signaling, in particular 
transport protocols that yield to congestion, and more generalized 
signaling and  telemetry solutions.  Robustness under these conditions 
is paramount  while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication, 
authorization,  privacy and data integrity.  Elements may be deployed as 
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS 
detection, classification,  traceback and mitigation, both on premise or 
service provider based.  Should changing conditions necessitate altering 
the specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of 
mitigation coverage, timely and  effective signaling of telemetry and 
current threat status to all elements involved in the mitigation is 
essential.  Feedback between participating elements is required for 
increased awareness supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated 
templating and extension mechanisms).  Any modification of or extension 
to existing protocols must be in close coordination with the working 
groups responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in 
this working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and 
responsible Area Directors.  The WG may coordinate on a situationally
appropriate basis with other working groups and initiatives which
compliment the DOTS effort e.g. M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The WG will document requirements for the transport protocol to be used 
for the signaling of DOTS and consult with the Transport Area about the 
requirements and, if applicable, any new development of an encapsulation 
scheme for DOTS.  The working group may develop an applicability 
statement (architecture document) explaining how all these elements 
should communicate together for a complete DDoS service.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards 
track specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS 
problem space.  While the resulting standards should be designed so they 
apply to network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, 
this working group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms 
directly related to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and 
mitigation, incorporating the general principles articulated in RFC5218
.  Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS 
is intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in 
the near term.  The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a 
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity, 
and providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices 
being the default in all cases.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, 
protocol requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees 
fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models 
to address the stated goals of the WG.

Milestones:
  Feb 2016 - Requirements/use case information document to IESG
  May 2016 - Transport document as proposed standard to IESG
  Jun 2016 - Data model document as proposed standard to IESG



From nobody Fri Jun 26 13:58:56 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21831A002F for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 P4ea0wC_Kt6X for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:58:54 -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 5E62F1A0011 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from timber.sei.cmu.edu (timber.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.23]) by plainfield.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1408) with ESMTP id t5QKwqKO014927 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:58:52 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cert.org; s=jthatj15xw2j; t=1435352332; bh=VO2Vz6S3VmSnPJ0A+YstfLWVRokk3rj65cqr15CGKCc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=jro0+/SlgRV4XHBHf0P1CoJG0TqyRKg2XEpy5r/PGjWkUuMN3dAhAoDj25hIcgaDc y3QG/ko02e4BCqwjEX+oJhx+rNCsilcoMB/7l4rPCFCyP+4aHUdYIYCMMMbPY+P+gL MijBaWlxjsQmmzTHnkRBpxrXc5YTHwqHsZGSjMB8=
Received: from CASCADE.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cascade.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.248]) by timber.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/1456) with ESMTP id t5QKwp3t025124 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:58:51 -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 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:58:50 -0400
From: "Roman D. Danyliw" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: Exploring the DOTS Use Cases
Thread-Index: AdCwUjl0v2xn4Fe6REGLnjnzdw9xFg==
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:58:49 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFCD94A1106@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: 
Subject: [Dots] Exploring the DOTS Use Cases
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:58:55 -0000

Hello!

With the chartering behind us, it's time to really get to work.  A key disc=
ussion for us  to have going into and at the Prague meeting will be the use=
 cases for the WG to address.  Daniel published draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-0=
0 in April (thank you!) to begin exploring these use cases.

Feedback to the list on this draft and further ideas on the use cases and r=
equirements is needed.  Please let your thinking be known.

Thanks,
Roman


From nobody Sat Jun 27 00:38:31 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B7C1B31D5 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.911
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 XDqBR_fy_sI4 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 951A41B31D4 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUK99632; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:38:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:38:25 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:38:18 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-xia-dots-extended-use-cases-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQsKjXo+I9cEH+NUOY90NVFlzALZ2/8JBQ
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:38:17 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "Roman D. Danyliw" 
Subject: [Dots] =?utf-8?b?6L2s5Y+ROiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_draft-xia-dots-extended-use-cases-00=2Etxt?=
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:38:30 -0000
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From nobody Sun Jun 28 20:00:01 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3FD1B2EF5 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.51
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 igeCl90A1iWq for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B29CB1B2EF3 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUM12798; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:59:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 03:59:54 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:59:49 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
To: "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" 
Thread-Topic: My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
Thread-Index: AdCyF6jNVRfBmBC3Sv+RG0gWIsUWSg==
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:59:49 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE59CCSZXEMA502MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 02:59:59 -0000

--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE59CCSZXEMA502MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for bringing the use case draft for DOTS. I have reviewed it and hav=
e some comments on it:
1. In the introduction section, the statement made in the first paragraph "=
...make DDoS attacks harder to be detected at a single point" is a little v=
ague. I don't think the following examples of this section explain the stat=
ement well. They can be detected by one dpi device nowadays in fact, which =
only needs more fine-grained monitoring and more detecting intelligence, i.=
e., signature, session state analysis, etc. The coordination between distri=
buted anti-ddos system aims for not only detecting, but also for mitigating=
 with better accuracy, performance and efficiency. Maybe better examples ca=
n be on-premise anti-ddos device plus anti-ddos cloud service and attack so=
urce tracking, and so on;
2. Actually, dedicated anti-ddos appliance can detect ddos attacks by itsel=
f and send the attack infomation to controller directly, not every ddos att=
acks need to be determined by the controller;
3. The flow repository is not essential in some cases, although it's very i=
mportant for ddos centralized analysis based on flow information in many ca=
ses;
4. For On-premise Asymmetric Use Case, why does it still need ddos monitori=
ng for the outbound traffic if the ddos mitigation function is not provided=
 for it?

FYI, we have submitted another DOTS use cases draft to describe several pro=
mising DOTS use cases being complementary to yours, your review and comment=
s are welcome.

Thanks!

B.R.
Frank

--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE59CCSZXEMA502MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Hi Daniel,

Thanks for bringing the use cas=
e draft for DOTS. I have reviewed it and have some comments on it:


1. In the introduction section,=
 the statement made in the first paragraph "...make DDoS attacks harde=
r to be detected at a single point" is a little vague. I don't think t=
he following examples of this section explain
 the statement well. They can be detected by one dpi device nowadays in fac=
t, which only needs more fine-grained monitoring and more detecting intelli=
gence, i.e., signature, session state analysis, etc. The coordination betwe=
en distributed anti-ddos system
 aims for not only detecting, but also for mitigating with better accuracy,=
 performance and efficiency. Maybe better examples can be on-premise anti-d=
dos device plus anti-ddos cloud service and attack source tracking, and so =
on;


2. Actually, dedicated anti-ddo=
s appliance can detect ddos attacks by itself and send the attack infomatio=
n to controller directly, not every ddos attacks need to be determined by t=
he controller;


3. The flow repository is not e=
ssential in some cases, although it's very important for ddos centralized a=
nalysis based on flow information in many cases;


4. For On-premise Asymmetric Us=
e Case, why does it still need ddos monitoring for the outbound traffic if =
the ddos mitigation function is not provided for it?


 


FYI, we have submitted another =
DOTS use cases draft to describe several promising DOTS use cases being com=
plementary to yours, your review and comments are welcome.


 


Thanks!


 


B.R.


Frank






--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE59CCSZXEMA502MBSchi_--


From nobody Mon Jun 29 13:58:42 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3491B3432 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.701
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 2BPiuQnC1EoQ for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta7.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta7.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.98]) (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 09C331B342F for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.82.253.227] by server-2.bemta-7.messagelabs.com id A1/99-08264-271B1955; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:58:26 +0000
X-Env-Sender: Scott.Barvick@corero.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-170.messagelabs.com!1435611505!15193263!1
X-Originating-IP: [71.184.227.49]
X-StarScan-Received: 
X-StarScan-Version: 6.13.16; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 1052 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2015 20:58:26 -0000
Received: from mercury.corero.com (HELO MERCURY.corero.com) (71.184.227.49) by server-8.tower-170.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 29 Jun 2015 20:58:26 -0000
Received: from MERCURY.corero.com ([fe80::2c05:6b26:abe2:ad24]) by MERCURY.corero.com ([fe80::2c05:6b26:abe2:ad24%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:58:25 -0400
From: Scott Barvick 
To: "Xialiang (Frank)" , "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
Thread-Index: AQHQsq5W5E1qAXJkEUmas2K5bvQYTQ==
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:58:24 +0000
Message-ID: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604
x-originating-ip: [10.20.59.45]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1B710EB1AC36scottbarvickcorerocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:58:40 -0000

--_000_D1B710EB1AC36scottbarvickcorerocom_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

These documents are good starts on capturing the use cases that we will use=
 to drive the requirements for our work.

I tend to agree with Frank=92s comments below and believe that we have to b=
e careful to not create complex new architectural components (e.g. Controll=
er or Flow Repository) that will limit implementation and deployment option=
s =96 and might not work in some cases (see my #1 below).   Perhaps it just=
 a case of only 6 use cases out of many more captured so far that we need t=
o document as an official output of the WG.

One thing these documents and my contribution below highlight is that we wi=
ll need to quickly agree on the terms we will use for the endpoints that ar=
e communicating e.g. DDoS mitigation appliance/function, Virtualized DDoS m=
itigation appliance, NFV DDoS monitor/mitigation, DOTS Receiver, DOTS Colle=
cting Process, etc.  I know we all might use slightly different terms in ou=
r daily lives so agreeing on them for the WG purposes will be important.

My contribution of other use cases to consider are:

  1.  Inbound link saturation attack =96 This may sound similar to hybrid u=
se case identified in both drafts, but the point needs to be made that if t=
he inbound link becomes saturated by a DDoS attack, even with a DDoS applia=
nce that can handle the load, we need to make sure that the communication p=
rotocol used to signal either the traffic level data or DDoS alert will not=
 fail if response traffic is caught behind the saturation attack.   I parti=
cularly like this use case because it is real and it will enforce a discipl=
ine of focus and efficiency on us.  It also will help us identify exactly w=
hat information needs to be signaled in order for the upstream provider to =
reroute the most specific data possible so that as the cloud-based scrubbin=
g center isn=92t itself overwhelmed or the cause of excessive latency to go=
od traffic.
  2.  N/M inline mitigation through traffic redirection =96 In an inline DD=
oS appliance scenario with several (M) links operating as a single trunk (e=
.g. Mx10G links), it may be the case that only N appliances would be deploy=
ed in the trunk and a DDoS signal could be sent to reroute flows through on=
e of the N inline DDoS appliances.  Note that this is all local and will li=
kely have the luxury of a separate management network that will not be affe=
cted during an attack.
  3.  Virtualized DDoS mitigation appliance =96 I realize the example in Se=
ction 4 of draft-xia defines NFV perhaps in this way, but we need to have 2=
 use cases (at least), one for the basic case of virtualizing an appliance,=
 complete with access to network ports, but yet running in a hypervisor and=
 capable of being spun up or down on demand in front of other VM-based serv=
ers and services.    The other is the full NFV service-chaining infrastruct=
ure that continues to gain momentum as well.   Both will exist as we roll o=
ut this document.

I=92m sure I will think of more, but I wanted to keep the discussion going =
so that we can get as much on the table before the next meeting.

Regards,
Scott

From: Dots > on behalf =
of Xialiang >
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 10:59 PM
To: "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" >
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" >
Subject: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for bringing the use case draft for DOTS. I have reviewed it and hav=
e some comments on it:
1. In the introduction section, the statement made in the first paragraph "=
...make DDoS attacks harder to be detected at a single point" is a little v=
ague. I don't think the following examples of this section explain the stat=
ement well. They can be detected by one dpi device nowadays in fact, which =
only needs more fine-grained monitoring and more detecting intelligence, i.=
e., signature, session state analysis, etc. The coordination between distri=
buted anti-ddos system aims for not only detecting, but also for mitigating=
 with better accuracy, performance and efficiency. Maybe better examples ca=
n be on-premise anti-ddos device plus anti-ddos cloud service and attack so=
urce tracking, and so on;
2. Actually, dedicated anti-ddos appliance can detect ddos attacks by itsel=
f and send the attack infomation to controller directly, not every ddos att=
acks need to be determined by the controller;
3. The flow repository is not essential in some cases, although it's very i=
mportant for ddos centralized analysis based on flow information in many ca=
ses;
4. For On-premise Asymmetric Use Case, why does it still need ddos monitori=
ng for the outbound traffic if the ddos mitigation function is not provided=
 for it?

FYI, we have submitted another DOTS use cases draft to describe several pro=
mising DOTS use cases being complementary to yours, your review and comment=
s are welcome.

Thanks!

B.R.
Frank

--_000_D1B710EB1AC36scottbarvickcorerocom_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable







These documents are good starts on capturing the use cases that we wil=
l use to drive the requirements for our work.







I tend to agree with Frank=92s comments below and believe that we have=
 to be careful to not create complex new architectural components (e.g. Con=
troller or Flow Repository) that will limit implementation and deployment o=
ptions =96 and might not work in some
 cases (see my #1 below).   Perhaps it just a case of only 6 use cases=
 out of many more captured so far that we need to document as an official o=
utput of the WG.       







One thing these documents and my contribution below highlight is that =
we will need to quickly agree on the terms we will use for the endpoints th=
at are communicating e.g. DDoS mitigation appliance/function, Virtualized D=
DoS mitigation appliance, NFV DDoS
 monitor/mitigation, DOTS Receiver, DOTS Collecting Process, etc.  I k=
now we all might use slightly different terms in our daily lives so agreein=
g on them for the WG purposes will be important.







My contribution of other use cases to consider are:


    

  1. Inbound link saturation attack =96 This may sound similar to hybrid use=
 case identified in both drafts, but the point needs to be made that if the=
 inbound link becomes saturated by a DDoS attack, even with a DDoS applianc=
e that can handle the load, we need
 to make sure that the communication protocol used to signal either the tra=
ffic level data or DDoS alert will not fail if response traffic is caught b=
ehind the saturation attack.   I particularly like this use case becau=
se it is real and it will enforce a discipline
 of focus and efficiency on us.  It also will help us identify exactly=
 what information needs to be signaled in order for the upstream provider t=
o reroute the most specific data possible so that as the cloud-based scrubb=
ing center isn=92t itself overwhelmed or
 the cause of excessive latency to good traffic.
  2. N/M inline mitigat=
ion through traffic redirection =96 In an inline DDoS appliance scenario wi=
th several (M) links operating as a single trunk (e.g. Mx10G links), it may=
 be the case that only N appliances would be deployed in the trunk and a DD=
oS signal could
 be sent to reroute flows through one of the N inline DDoS appliances. &nbs=
p;Note that this is all local and will likely have the luxury of a separate=
 management network that will not be affected during an attack.
  3. Vir=
tualized DDoS mitigation appliance =96 I realize the example in Section 4 o=
f draft-xia defines NFV perhaps in this way, but we need to have 2 use case=
s (at least), one for the basic case of virtualizing an appliance, complete=
 with access to network ports,
 but yet running in a hypervisor and capable of being spun up or down on de=
mand in front of other VM-based servers and services.    The othe=
r is the full NFV service-chaining infrastructure that continues to gain mo=
mentum as well.   Both will exist as we roll
 out this document.


I=92m sure I will think of more, but I wanted to keep the discussion g=
oing so that we can get as much on the table before the next meeting.







Regards,


Scott









From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Xialiang &l=
t;frank.xialiang@huawei.com>

Date: Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 10:5=
9 PM

To: "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>

Cc: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@i=
etf.org>

Subject: [Dots] My comments on draf=
t-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:

















Hi Daniel,

Thanks for bringing the use cas=
e draft for DOTS. I have reviewed it and have some comments on it:


1. In the introduction section,=
 the statement made in the first paragraph "...make DDoS attacks harde=
r to be detected at a single point" is a little vague. I don't think t=
he following examples of this section explain
 the statement well. They can be detected by one dpi device nowadays in fac=
t, which only needs more fine-grained monitoring and more detecting intelli=
gence, i.e., signature, session state analysis, etc. The coordination betwe=
en distributed anti-ddos system
 aims for not only detecting, but also for mitigating with better accuracy,=
 performance and efficiency. Maybe better examples can be on-premise anti-d=
dos device plus anti-ddos cloud service and attack source tracking, and so =
on;


2. Actually, dedicated anti-ddo=
s appliance can detect ddos attacks by itself and send the attack infomatio=
n to controller directly, not every ddos attacks need to be determined by t=
he controller;


3. The flow repository is not e=
ssential in some cases, although it's very important for ddos centralized a=
nalysis based on flow information in many cases;


4. For On-premise Asymmetric Us=
e Case, why does it still need ddos monitoring for the outbound traffic if =
the ddos mitigation function is not provided for it?


 


FYI, we have submitted another =
DOTS use cases draft to describe several promising DOTS use cases being com=
plementary to yours, your review and comments are welcome.


 


Thanks!


 


B.R.


Frank











--_000_D1B710EB1AC36scottbarvickcorerocom_--


From nobody Mon Jun 29 14:40:44 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744111B3552 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 h5l13hP1jAEv for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EFAF1B3551 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pactm7 with SMTP id tm7so110639647pac.2 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=3vmSFhOU/hJ4gzt6sdEsaqlbRSUsf9N5nNSbcy57e4s=; b=VSH2V20vlgcjDSpqOe6f3Tv8dTTLZUuAk0ihcVJk0V+fEHNLVoMchlHDoF+/FTI2xG mJ4LwwZh/IcJrpPCxNAYcsLIvlipKeweRBynUPY0+N1WM8T5k3Jyk0nGgEgiJKhC3SHR 8E6e6rB7BFijl1LPDpRl79k/L2X6BosBDuwqI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=3vmSFhOU/hJ4gzt6sdEsaqlbRSUsf9N5nNSbcy57e4s=; b=Q99rKMwTWbvp00lxjT1kLbIR7R3E0ukXrjuBhKTO/HDDLbDGN9bmRmn0PUvYxNGTRR /Mumu112lCVjvAqIsS7e+cSQo4igE7P7yJaJttsu/EvPMCkw0sv8QSyCrej/q0HlZ0ij zbD7rm0zUqSWk7qCl/p7Va4CziXihD4Biz40bfobYHayKNnw7feNKILrfH9OzpFCxbMh 0lVBjSG1ykP1swrIlpBSJf9sQX08eED6x0IlHySFVgpiKr87sbyZZABF7akKNpv9pWjo HSx1NcN097IjGf2KZ5AdyO+TeiHSgUOHpnI7GhGsPBFXEb/MbdRzdyTg7Bxmk9ZZwGNu F6OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6xDPlg3/8I8CnojvafHwA28GUB0uLFNtn3ci1liQ7yzTTLsVUru6poas4teGCczITpQIY
X-Received: by 10.68.228.168 with SMTP id sj8mr35698525pbc.102.1435614041807;  Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.121] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c3sm43309726pdk.39.2015.06.29.14.40.38 for  (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:40:34 +0700
Message-ID: <5C4D4464-4238-4700-B984-C8696D257CC8@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:40:43 -0000

On 30 Jun 2015, at 3:58, Scott Barvick wrote:

> One thing these documents and my contribution below highlight is that 
> we will need to quickly agree on the terms we will use for the 
> endpoints that are communicating e.g. DDoS mitigation 
> appliance/function, Virtualized DDoS mitigation appliance, NFV DDoS 
> monitor/mitigation, DOTS Receiver, DOTS Collecting Process, etc.  I 
> know we all might use slightly different terms in our daily lives so 
> agreeing on them for the WG purposes will be important.

The use-case document is a good start, but additional work is needed to 
bring it into alignment with scenarios typically seen on production 
networks.

What we're really talking about with DOTS is a signaling mechanism - 
anything architectural or situationally-specific regarding 
detection/classification/traceback and/or mitigation mechanisms beyond 
simple verbs is probably out of scope.  That would also include 
topological references like NFV as well as adjectives like 'virtual' and 
so forth.

Some terms like supplicant, broker, relay, consumer, controller, et. al. 
may be appropriate in this context.

With regards to use-cases, we must be careful not to overthink them.  
While some basic situationally-specific data points should be included 
in each use-case, we don't want to get too far down into the weeds, 
because we want this communications mechanism to be 
generally-applicable, and we also want to ensure that our ambitions for 
the initial phase are attainable within a reasonable timeframe.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Mon Jun 29 18:21:46 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789831A21A8 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.74
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 yyXs2Hg1yrEN for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A962D1A21A5 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUN22377; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:21:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.72) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:21:37 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:21:34 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
To: Scott Barvick 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
Thread-Index: AQHQsq5W5E1qAXJkEUmas2K5bvQYTZ3EN+rA
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:21:34 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE6CB2SZXEMA502MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" , "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Dots] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIE15IGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LW1nbHQt?= =?gb2312?b?ZG90cy11c2UtY2FzZXMtMDA6?=
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:21:45 -0000

--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE6CB2SZXEMA502MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE6CB2SZXEMA502MBSchi_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Hi Scot=
t,


Thanks =
for your comments. My comments are inline:


&n=
bsp;






=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Scott Barvick [mailto:Scott.Barvick@corero.=
com]


=B7=A2=
=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2015=C4=EA6=D4=C230=C8=D5
 4:58

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xialiang (Frank); daniel.migault@ericsson.com

=B3=AD=CB=CD: dots@ietf.org

=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:=







 




These doc=
uments are good starts on capturing the use cases that we will use to drive=
 the requirements for our work.






&nbs=
p;






I tend to=
 agree with Frank=A1=AFs comments below and believe that we have to be care=
ful to not create complex new architectural components (e.g. Controller or =
Flow Repository) that will limit implementation
 and deployment options =A8C and might not work in some cases (see my #1 be=
low).   Perhaps it just a case of only 6 use cases out of many more ca=
ptured so far that we need to document as an official output of the WG. &nb=
sp;     


[Frank]=
: At this initial stage, having different use cases is not a bad thing. Act=
ually, they can help us to consider and discuss more widely and find the ri=
ght direction to solve the real requirements.
 DOTS work can have a evolving path. Of course, we must focus down to the k=
ey use cases and solution in the first stage, then we can extend DOTS work =
scope to more advanced use cases or solutions.






&nbs=
p;






One thing=
 these documents and my contribution below highlight is that we will need t=
o quickly agree on the terms we will use for the endpoints that are communi=
cating e.g. DDoS mitigation appliance/function,
 Virtualized DDoS mitigation appliance, NFV DDoS monitor/mitigation, DOTS R=
eceiver, DOTS Collecting Process, etc.  I know we all might use slight=
ly different terms in our daily lives so agreeing on them for the WG purpos=
es will be important.


[Frank]=
: Agree. But how to?






&nbs=
p;






My contri=
bution of other use cases to consider are:




    

  1. 
Inbound link saturation attack =A8C This may sound sim=
ilar to hybrid use case identified in both drafts, but the point needs to b=
e made that if the inbound link becomes saturated by a DDoS attack, even wi=
th a DDoS appliance that can handle the
 load, we need to make sure that the communication protocol used to signal =
either the traffic level data or DDoS alert will not fail if response traff=
ic is caught behind the saturation attack.   I particularly like this =
use case because it is real and it will
 enforce a discipline of focus and efficiency on us.  It also will hel=
p us identify exactly what information needs to be signaled in order for th=
e upstream provider to reroute the most specific data possible so that as t=
he cloud-based scrubbing center isn=A1=AFt
 itself overwhelmed or the cause of excessive latency to good traffic.=




[Frank]: what information need=
s to be signaled has nothing to do with the inbound link saturation conditi=
on, what protocol to carry these information does. In addition, do you impl=
y that DOTS may signal the reroute policy?


    

  1. 
N/M inline mitigation through traffic redirection =A8C=
 In an inline DDoS appliance scenario with several (M) links operating as a=
 single trunk (e.g. Mx10G links), it may be the case that only N appliances=
 would be deployed in the trunk and a
 DDoS signal could be sent to reroute flows through one of the N inline DDo=
S appliances.  Note that this is all local and will likely have the lu=
xury of a separate management network that will not be affected during an a=
ttack.



[Frank]: interesting. In this =
use case, maybe a controller is needed for the centralized decision.


    

  1. 
Virtualized DDoS mitigation appliance =A8C I realize t=
he example in Section 4 of draft-xia defines NFV perhaps in this way, but w=
e need to have 2 use cases (at least), one for the basic case of virtualizi=
ng an appliance, complete with access
 to network ports, but yet running in a hypervisor and capable of being spu=
n up or down on demand in front of other VM-based servers and services. &nb=
sp;  The other is the full NFV service-chaining infrastructure that co=
ntinues to gain momentum as well.   Both will
 exist as we roll out this document.



[Frank]: two NFV use cases: si=
ngle VNF vs NFV service-chaining? Where are they deployed?




I=A1=AFm =
sure I will think of more, but I wanted to keep the discussion going so tha=
t we can get as much on the table before the next meeting.






&nbs=
p;






Regards,<=
o:p>






Scott






&nbs=
p;






From:
Dots=
 <dots-bounces@ietf.org>=
 on behalf of Xialiang <fra=
nk.xialiang@huawei.com>

Date: Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 10:59 PM

To: "daniel.miga=
ult@ericsson.com" <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>

Cc: "dots@ietf.org" &=
lt;dots@ietf.org>

Subject: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:






&nbs=
p;








Hi Daniel=
,


Thanks fo=
r bringing the use case draft for DOTS. I have reviewed it and have some co=
mments on it:


1. In the=
 introduction section, the statement made in the first paragraph "...m=
ake DDoS attacks harder to be detected at a single point" is a little =
vague. I don't think the following examples of this
 section explain the statement well. They can be detected by one dpi device=
 nowadays in fact, which only needs more fine-grained monitoring and more d=
etecting intelligence, i.e., signature, session state analysis, etc. The co=
ordination between distributed anti-ddos
 system aims for not only detecting, but also for mitigating with better ac=
curacy, performance and efficiency. Maybe better examples can be on-premise=
 anti-ddos device plus anti-ddos cloud service and attack source tracking, =
and so on;


2. Actual=
ly, dedicated anti-ddos appliance can detect ddos attacks by itself and sen=
d the attack infomation to controller directly, not every ddos attacks need=
 to be determined by the controller;


3. The fl=
ow repository is not essential in some cases, although it's very important =
for ddos centralized analysis based on flow information in many cases;=



4. For On=
-premise Asymmetric Use Case, why does it still need ddos monitoring for th=
e outbound traffic if the ddos mitigation function is not provided for it?<=
o:p>


 


FYI, we h=
ave submitted another DOTS use cases draft to describe several promising DO=
TS use cases being complementary to yours, your review and comments are wel=
come.


 


Thanks!


 


B.R.=



Frank










--_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12ADE6CB2SZXEMA502MBSchi_--


From nobody Mon Jun 29 18:24:58 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21C81A21C5 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.078
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 1UWW7b3cMDl6 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F0961A21BD for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 18:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUN22545; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:24:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:24:52 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:24:49 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
To: Roland Dobbins 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
Thread-Index: AQHQsq5W5E1qAXJkEUmas2K5bvQYTZ3DfPwAgADESEA=
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:24:49 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:  <5C4D4464-4238-4700-B984-C8696D257CC8@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <5C4D4464-4238-4700-B984-C8696D257CC8@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Dots] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIE15IGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LW1nbHQt?= =?gb2312?b?ZG90cy11c2UtY2FzZXMtMDA6?=
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 01:24:56 -0000
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=


From nobody Mon Jun 29 19:06:31 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8C61ACE9A for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 Djos2GC5uzwX for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x232.google.com (mail-pd0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA1F1A9232 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbci14 with SMTP id ci14so126552818pdb.2 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=n70UNxB+745dj9mbW9x2QVi5OlrFIRWLXx1hbKKW9/o=; b=dfFkU9cGMKG04NWgmIU7gl0kjxZfdbI1ndICbZ3TOYHJQ655+3+Esa5n2bJXMhSscT ovCnY8coXymhl706lBw37xeemxysD609GiYb4Bmc2kMQBR9/ZVUr7cNQOz1U9OK8yo/3 0PLBRdb6cDwnhaXwqGCxiZohjrouhtw4AlrVk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=n70UNxB+745dj9mbW9x2QVi5OlrFIRWLXx1hbKKW9/o=; b=VdQF3yukILqsNEqPEj7oA9f1iNqE4wwaI2JgVTnkjRC0MYMIT5jJjTI9nipuxP/8l/ 3mBWQ1CSof4wiQy8AHtSGTOb8/ppxeL08arJz7X+z2MQdSP+kUgO81SFaBe/j934v/eV Ea1QJgE48mBQ1QUmVa/uAQGafrENqQwWsLleTPtdO/hWEoLGKgQEvu/VRpg2AZeSxrJa LQ93awc1tABI6Ueu3UtU5Sj6QZq7fvDd4THzXFvCIArKMjLeiHGDLceUdVZsDgiwtI3E EHmzm+KxQ0KBxOUiMAnaZWErm2lqSCAEG3einpqtXd7ljkn1nzGlTSjHLUfIyEqoV+eA TidA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnwH6JZydiKcUidG2ORlnJzWFoBWYDjD2zQJViYICH+ybzMr2tOBnrztIYHJMByJW6njUCm
X-Received: by 10.66.62.133 with SMTP id y5mr79945par.8.1435629988238; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.121] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id le17sm43665209pab.2.2015.06.29.19.06.25 for  (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:06:21 +0700
Message-ID: 
In-Reply-To: 
References:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:06:30 -0000

On 30 Jun 2015, at 8:21, Xialiang (Frank) wrote:

> [Frank]: interesting. In this use case, maybe a controller is needed 
> for the centralized decision.

This may or may not the be the case; we can postulate it in a given 
scenario, but this is an architectural decision which is out of scope 
for this WG, IMHO.

Our task is to build a communications protocol suited to communicating 
information regarding the need for, and some degree of guidance 
regarding, the mitigation of DDoS attacks.  Whether this protocol is 
used in a centralized or decentralized system is immaterial to us, in 
this context.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Mon Jun 29 19:24:56 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3461B2F40 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.078
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 287zoG6hR803 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A8E71B2F3C for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:24:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUN25823; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:24:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.70) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:24:42 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by szxema411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:24:37 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
To: Roland Dobbins 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
Thread-Index: AQHQsq5W5E1qAXJkEUmas2K5bvQYTZ3EN+rA//+PVICAAIk5kA==
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:24:36 +0000
Message-ID: 
References:   
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: [Dots] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIE15IGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LW1nbHQt?= =?gb2312?b?ZG90cy11c2UtY2FzZXMtMDA6?=
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:24:55 -0000
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==


From nobody Mon Jun 29 19:53:11 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17B41B2FAA for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 mIqcTPNDjiZo for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22e.google.com (mail-pd0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D077E1B2FA9 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdjd13 with SMTP id d13so2384027pdj.0 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arbor.net; s=m0; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=beWEiCUqSO7kycUQR00kYfHb8LBW5Q/M73DXXCniNFI=; b=czCq+GjyLTt7MQrTKBgPtJ2VOT/bE7B9hdXo4Jvb2q2PMIpduFGuRRmfErBlsohIg8 vHYLEwkp/XBq1cS3wXJ3ax22DdvvZZ3QoZUcXzRJsYxBmWm4syaNtGN1A4n2OgoAq7i/ b4kW2Gh1E/E33H+GyhEzanDTw3n5TUnXfeHoY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=beWEiCUqSO7kycUQR00kYfHb8LBW5Q/M73DXXCniNFI=; b=bN2qPicLUv2Nu3cLPcJrYDTc8xedCE+VQRp2ZDe2e0BDkWEO/VsUpBBLK0U64qbUJP ChKHZ80Jf+fzo/cSrShPPsLbYrtAlapb/ZSNlG46ka7dtfCX9vFB3IaGjYIqD668om5k 703I29EBqDLNdsraQzKYndF7SZAdE62ixxNNe3fSAXV7S+IJcvGFCFhLc6IVTXW8ywb+ xwfQh0Ph2N+DCoUfymvg3q8cXmK7X4Ly++2Fubd8j3gaz0yWsUFHWB+o5ftNxjVAL7ps LXrUBINA9PsakkWPfJCYxLWbTBklz0Me1IAYOb4y/THjBFVuQRCNWvVU8xdc9+nlOw1k O1sA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQno6DAkIAiyDj9kq7f86XtTD+V8gP3qa/Q7achhw25juf/g05cR22D/1ZYeHsBJB8SPHIa2
X-Received: by 10.66.63.71 with SMTP id e7mr37673901pas.57.1435632788339; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.254.121] (202-176-81-112.static.asianet.co.th. [202.176.81.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wm8sm40472685pbc.19.2015.06.29.19.53.05 for  (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roland Dobbins" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:53:02 +0700
Message-ID: <4AF8063E-1513-48CD-87AD-4DEA223780C7@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: 
References:    
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 02:53:10 -0000

On 30 Jun 2015, at 9:24, Xialiang (Frank) wrote:

> The architecture will influence the protocol and signaling content 
> perhaps.

Only to the extent that there will be controllers, consumers, and relays 
(or similarly-named participating nodes/roles) and so forth within the 
communications scheme, and with regards to considerations which apply 
under attack conditions

It isn't within the scope of this to recommend, or even define, a 
detection/classification/traceback/mitigation architecture.  It is 
certainly within scope to consider various architectures to the small 
extent that such consideration may have an influence on protocol 
requirements.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins 


From nobody Mon Jun 29 20:50:10 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5EA1B3032 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 7Rev6V0kqXxG for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A38F61B302F for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2760; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435636207; x=1436845807; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=RvbsSeKFenehdvtkrHKyf58n3s7EkuibvtEM7ovTLpI=; b=WzxwJHnmqNjpdNfwjnvxJqzNvwfuDABYdaz3sQfags9eWT3TGfA5Si8B oNchEmtU6m/umCq+xGkvh1WTPqoZWQ74qRTvq9x/e0QdWtVklUNf4N0SB MplbOL/aiP1xDw6IY23mjAc96JTDSAyEdlqRxVG5cgz1COLgE2SrxbJdK 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DVAwAKEZJV/4ENJK1bgxFUXwaDGLoSCYFnhXgCHIEfOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIgEBAQQjEUMOBAIBCBEEAQEDAgYdAwICAjAUAQYBAQUDAgQTCIgnDbM3lnIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXgSGKKYQuJzgGgmIvgRQFjBKHcgGEWIg2QoNPknAmg3pvAYEDQoECAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,374,1432598400"; d="scan'208";a="164051582"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2015 03:50:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5U3o6tS029564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:50:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.123]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:50:06 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-transport-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQstnU8kDPSBbHr0W+pFsrtQ7r0Z3EUxHQ
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:50:05 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A478809EC@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <20150630020939.10497.81039.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150630020939.10497.81039.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.65.59.138]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-transport-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:50:09 -0000
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From nobody Mon Jun 29 21:55:11 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C89B1B30DE for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 xcKUuBQngz8U for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 704FD1B30D1 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2648; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1435640107; x=1436849707; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=P7sk4pBaa/np07sOP89Wm4AoXamnOjdY1oA8K2UHgdE=; b=AWugK6TNJ4Jc6Ug1MS2N2/AmtMWcd0U5b9mdbRImfDNYAQ4sOGLu5VoK LyMpwbKk39ZlsW00nqbmKLcNIJ8cpt8I5Z0S73rfo15IxgzzN1m+qmRMR upOvAkaQcVgy7WKv14mtoaaAaK6tedK0VhdotHNOeoWpS0ZGtq+PjihAy Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DVAwAYIJJV/4oNJK1RCoMRVF8Ggxi6EgmBZ4V4AhyBHzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCIBAQEEIxFDDgQCAQgRBAEBAwIGHQMCAgIwFAEGAQEFAwIEEwiIJw2zOJZyAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4EhiimEKQUnFiIGgmIvgRQFjBKHcgGEWIg2QoNPimyIBCaDem8BgQNCgQIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,375,1432598400";  d="scan'208";a="5739422"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2015 04:55:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5U4t6nc024549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:55:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.123]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:55:06 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" 
To: "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-info-model-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQsvBz13kReTT2VUqko6MxX1y4AZ3Ee3aQ
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:55:05 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A47880A75@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <20150630045133.12348.40448.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150630045133.12348.40448.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.65.59.138]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-info-model-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:55:09 -0000
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From nobody Mon Jun 29 23:00:54 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1BD1B36BE for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 iswTjxagWV8D for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com (mail-la0-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69A291B36BD for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagc2 with SMTP id c2so35128175lag.3 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=r15bh3Z+UqRjrTR5LcxOqTZjRiCptg9CMdQpfZH1jkU=; b=DQ49qwmvJppoQG5jZiplqBbtERHi7EkcA9My6GTXTqkLbzVgp5Q6pKlKSC3YB3wIOw OrhqBd5ZL4URt+LcDoJ9X5b9VC3HvigEnihqIF0szDqQOGLj9Tv8kWjExT3ewsoFpAEE UOMDa3TYJoFlu+A5qQHquMaYe4URFWJzldR7/b918SORBuO5u8enmlqc+eyFGlFXPuT+ 1TQkwKVETlbns5iaobe2ewvRcU8dsTYedZLfSbUBJueyRvJnxdbDgdFDZmWnlR19IGvb 2+yfpEp9S5wRnfOohcqHGMgDZAuV4Pis5Qb+u0tM4x9MNgXXPenK0SpSYLOksGip4oFX eEcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnotc+PuUpLXnDP07z6mmipEqUmf83uQzFU3ALyLE/tb232CIzbjtbLoL9kP7pgQuiKtWWc
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.6.1 with SMTP id w1mr17534172law.91.1435644049779; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.21.104 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [65.128.38.27]
In-Reply-To: <5C4D4464-4238-4700-B984-C8696D257CC8@arbor.net>
References:  <5C4D4464-4238-4700-B984-C8696D257CC8@arbor.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:49 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: John Schiel 
To: Roland Dobbins 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014942fe9c86020519b5edc0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:00:54 -0000

--089e014942fe9c86020519b5edc0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Roland Dobbins  wrote:

>
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 3:58, Scott Barvick wrote:
>
>  One thing these documents and my contribution below highlight is that we
>> will need to quickly agree on the terms we will use for the endpoints that
>> are communicating e.g. DDoS mitigation appliance/function, Virtualized DDoS
>> mitigation appliance, NFV DDoS monitor/mitigation, DOTS Receiver, DOTS
>> Collecting Process, etc.  I know we all might use slightly different terms
>> in our daily lives so agreeing on them for the WG purposes will be
>> important.
>>
>
> The use-case document is a good start, but additional work is needed to
> bring it into alignment with scenarios typically seen on production
> networks.
>
> What we're really talking about with DOTS is a signaling mechanism -
> anything architectural or situationally-specific regarding
> detection/classification/traceback and/or mitigation mechanisms beyond
> simple verbs is probably out of scope.  That would also include topological
> references like NFV as well as adjectives like 'virtual' and so forth.
>

Agreed. I'm not so sure NFV or any other VM architecture really needs to be
specifically called out. Let the vendor determine what is virtual and what
is not. The protocol shouldn't care whether the device is an appliance or a
VM but should be able to communicate the parameters of the attack, report
on the attack, mitigate the attack and report on the effectiveness of the
attack.


>
> Some terms like supplicant, broker, relay, consumer, controller, et. al.
> may be appropriate in this context.
>

+1

--John Schiel


>
> With regards to use-cases, we must be careful not to overthink them.
> While some basic situationally-specific data points should be included in
> each use-case, we don't want to get too far down into the weeds, because we
> want this communications mechanism to be generally-applicable, and we also
> want to ensure that our ambitions for the initial phase are attainable
> within a reasonable timeframe.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dots mailing list
> Dots@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>

--089e014942fe9c86020519b5edc0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Roland Dobbins <<=
a href=3D"mailto:rdobbins@arbor.net" target=3D"_blank">rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:

On 30 Jun 2015, at 3:58, Scott Barvick wrote:





One thing these documents and my contribution below highlight is that we wi=
ll need to quickly agree on the terms we will use for the endpoints that ar=
e communicating e.g. DDoS mitigation appliance/function, Virtualized DDoS m=
itigation appliance, NFV DDoS monitor/mitigation, DOTS Receiver, DOTS Colle=
cting Process, etc.=C2=A0 I know we all might use slightly different terms =
in our daily lives so agreeing on them for the WG purposes will be importan=
t.





The use-case document is a good start, but additional work is needed to bri=
ng it into alignment with scenarios typically seen on production networks.<=
br>


What we're really talking about with DOTS is a signaling mechanism - an=
ything architectural or situationally-specific regarding detection/classifi=
cation/traceback and/or mitigation mechanisms beyond simple verbs is probab=
ly out of scope.=C2=A0 That would also include topological references like =
NFV as well as adjectives like 'virtual' and so forth.

Agreed. I'm not so sure NFV or any other VM arc=
hitecture really needs to be specifically called out. Let the vendor determ=
ine what is virtual and what is not. The protocol shouldn't care whethe=
r the device is an appliance or a VM but should be able to communicate the =
parameters of the attack, report on the attack, mitigate the attack and rep=
ort on the effectiveness of the attack.=C2=A0
=C2=A0



Some terms like supplicant, broker, relay, consumer, controller, et. al. ma=
y be appropriate in this context.

+1

--John Schiel
=C2=A0



With regards to use-cases, we must be careful not to overthink them.=C2=A0 =
While some basic situationally-specific data points should be included in e=
ach use-case, we don't want to get too far down into the weeds, because=
 we want this communications mechanism to be generally-applicable, and we a=
lso want to ensure that our ambitions for the initial phase are attainable =
within a reasonable timeframe.



-----------------------------------

Roland Dobbins <=
rdobbins@arbor.net>



_______________________________________________

Dots mailing list

Dots@ietf.org

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





--089e014942fe9c86020519b5edc0--


From nobody Tue Jun 30 03:38:16 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA511A1B65 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
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] autolearn=ham
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 VERHe9dnfCaR for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f98.google.com (mail-oi0-f98.google.com [209.85.218.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A8A11A1B24 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiav63 with SMTP id v63so226064oia.3 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :user-agent:content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; bh=q/Fb1+ppddV+B1ZW1OSfHP/5EN2aHHW+VwhI2+hEh/E=; b=mL6U6UvW8aF2q9SFmO4/OZNnjqrH8687JbIHeMv36auG0TbTT3IrcGwb4AqilGF8Z8 UqlrCQfnUCAbzD2T6esuru5TjP9ndauSUtpRs9zteLEYBDTU14rjs4DYjXIUYx5obRCo 5u8Ux+PfAadDFbeZUMRjQPBJAXTU9BApfuiUTau7LsqujU4KvoI8IQjpyZHZ0t+yyJZ4 /Ksqp8Qm1YXea9kyNsqWGyyFPDeA4NF/TTBsY87NrHOmh98PkDTDKmiUlUWFDzmJp0Dy DVkuHrPC4wYvmfImReDQuSjRoxhT7DV4/1YEN5dplLr1x84zwP03QF2EpyU0orCJRSmH RNgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnTR/ob7sgYllfSJ4Wv6Zv52MhwK08sKcWqqVAwtXkRdMUCIvhQ/q96b7/Cb+ZoVXbVfwhDay2mIvaSd1tug3o2QrFpw==
X-Received: by 10.140.87.5 with SMTP id q5mr24650815qgd.3.1435660693337; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com. [72.13.63.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r41sm494227qkr.0.2015.06.30.03.38.12 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 03:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Relaying-Domain: verisign.com
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01 [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout01.verisign.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t5UAcBEW014244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:38:11 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:38:01 -0400
From: "Teague, Nik" 
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" , "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-info-model-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQsyDWRAv0pCBRkkCWjHC02ddQNQ==
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:38:00 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150630045133.12348.40448.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A47880A75@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A47880A75@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.2.150604
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <45E05247E86E2F4C8FBEAE80A121A09E@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-info-model-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:38:15 -0000
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From nobody Tue Jun 30 08:37:26 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEB81A90C1 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.05
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 DjDUGa0CBcCw for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.251.8]) (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 EEDB01A8A4A for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.82.250.19] by server-8.bemta-12.messagelabs.com id 38/0E-22808-0B7B2955; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:37:20 +0000
X-Env-Sender: Scott.Barvick@corero.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-16.tower-87.messagelabs.com!1435678633!30327728!1
X-Originating-IP: [71.184.227.49]
X-StarScan-Received: 
X-StarScan-Version: 6.13.16; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 22083 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2015 15:37:14 -0000
Received: from mercury.corero.com (HELO MERCURY.corero.com) (71.184.227.49) by server-16.tower-87.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jun 2015 15:37:14 -0000
Received: from MERCURY.corero.com ([fe80::2c05:6b26:abe2:ad24]) by MERCURY.corero.com ([fe80::2c05:6b26:abe2:ad24%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:37:12 -0400
From: Scott Barvick 
To: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
Thread-Topic: =?gb2312?B?W0RvdHNdILTwuLQ6ICBNeSBjb21tZW50cyBvbiBkcmFmdC1tZ2x0LWRvdHMt?= =?gb2312?Q?use-cases-00:?=
Thread-Index: AQHQstMk2GKVNox+CEKe8nQQjtg9pZ3FBG2w
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:37:11 +0000
Message-ID: <6073823821667642A5C884FF3A8807F81F499217@MERCURY.corero.com>
References:  
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.20.30.22]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6073823821667642A5C884FF3A8807F81F499217MERCURYcoreroco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Cc: "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" , "dots@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [Dots] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIE15IGNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LW1nbHQt?= =?gb2312?b?ZG90cy11c2UtY2FzZXMtMDA6?=
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:37:24 -0000

--_000_6073823821667642A5C884FF3A8807F81F499217MERCURYcoreroco_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

Rm9sbG93LXVwIG9uIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHNwZWNpZmljIHF1ZXN0aW9uIGVtYmVkZGVkIGJlbG93
oa0NCg0KU2NvdHQNCg0KDQpGcm9tOiBEb3RzIFttYWlsdG86ZG90cy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3Jn
XSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgWGlhbGlhbmcgKEZyYW5rKQ0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBKdW5lIDI5LCAy
MDE1IDk6MjIgUE0NClRvOiBTY290dCBCYXJ2aWNrDQpDYzogZGFuaWVsLm1pZ2F1bHRAZXJpY3Nz
b24uY29tOyBkb3RzQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbRG90c10gtPC4tDogTXkgY29tbWVudHMg
b24gZHJhZnQtbWdsdC1kb3RzLXVzZS1jYXNlcy0wMDoNCg0KSGkgU2NvdHQsDQpUaGFua3MgZm9y
IHlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMuIE15IGNvbW1lbnRzIGFyZSBpbmxpbmU6DQoNCreivP7IyzogU2NvdHQg
QmFydmljayBbbWFpbHRvOlNjb3R0LkJhcnZpY2tAY29yZXJvLmNvbV0NCreiy83KsbzkOiAyMDE1
xOo21MIzMMjVIDQ6NTgNCsrVvP7IyzogWGlhbGlhbmcgKEZyYW5rKTsgZGFuaWVsLm1pZ2F1bHRA
ZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPG1haWx0bzpkYW5pZWwubWlnYXVsdEBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20+DQqzrcvNOiBk
b3RzQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpkb3RzQGlldGYub3JnPg0K1vfM4jogUmU6IFtEb3RzXSBNeSBj
b21tZW50cyBvbiBkcmFmdC1tZ2x0LWRvdHMtdXNlLWNhc2VzLTAwOg0KDQpUaGVzZSBkb2N1bWVu
dHMgYXJlIGdvb2Qgc3RhcnRzIG9uIGNhcHR1cmluZyB0aGUgdXNlIGNhc2VzIHRoYXQgd2Ugd2ls
bCB1c2UgdG8gZHJpdmUgdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBmb3Igb3VyIHdvcmsuDQoNCkkgdGVuZCB0
byBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIEZyYW5roa9zIGNvbW1lbnRzIGJlbG93IGFuZCBiZWxpZXZlIHRoYXQgd2Ug
aGF2ZSB0byBiZSBjYXJlZnVsIHRvIG5vdCBjcmVhdGUgY29tcGxleCBuZXcgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJh
bCBjb21wb25lbnRzIChlLmcuIENvbnRyb2xsZXIgb3IgRmxvdyBSZXBvc2l0b3J5KSB0aGF0IHdp
bGwgbGltaXQgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gYW5kIGRlcGxveW1lbnQgb3B0aW9ucyCoQyBhbmQgbWln
aHQgbm90IHdvcmsgaW4gc29tZSBjYXNlcyAoc2VlIG15ICMxIGJlbG93KS4gICBQZXJoYXBzIGl0
IGp1c3QgYSBjYXNlIG9mIG9ubHkgNiB1c2UgY2FzZXMgb3V0IG9mIG1hbnkgbW9yZSBjYXB0dXJl
ZCBzbyBmYXIgdGhhdCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGRvY3VtZW50IGFzIGFuIG9mZmljaWFsIG91dHB1dCBv
ZiB0aGUgV0cuDQpbRnJhbmtdOiBBdCB0aGlzIGluaXRpYWwgc3RhZ2UsIGhhdmluZyBkaWZmZXJl
bnQgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGlzIG5vdCBhIGJhZCB0aGluZy4gQWN0dWFsbHksIHRoZXkgY2FuIGhlbHAg
dXMgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIgYW5kIGRpc2N1c3MgbW9yZSB3aWRlbHkgYW5kIGZpbmQgdGhlIHJpZ2h0
IGRpcmVjdGlvbiB0byBzb2x2ZSB0aGUgcmVhbCByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMuIERPVFMgd29yayBjYW4g
aGF2ZSBhIGV2b2x2aW5nIHBhdGguIE9mIGNvdXJzZSwgd2UgbXVzdCBmb2N1cyBkb3duIHRvIHRo
ZSBrZXkgdXNlIGNhc2VzIGFuZCBzb2x1dGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgZmlyc3Qgc3RhZ2UsIHRoZW4gd2Ug
Y2FuIGV4dGVuZCBET1RTIHdvcmsgc2NvcGUgdG8gbW9yZSBhZHZhbmNlZCB1c2UgY2FzZXMgb3Ig
c29sdXRpb25zLg0KDQpPbmUgdGhpbmcgdGhlc2UgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGFuZCBteSBjb250cmlidXRp
b24gYmVsb3cgaGlnaGxpZ2h0IGlzIHRoYXQgd2Ugd2lsbCBuZWVkIHRvIHF1aWNrbHkgYWdyZWUg
b24gdGhlIHRlcm1zIHdlIHdpbGwgdXNlIGZvciB0aGUgZW5kcG9pbnRzIHRoYXQgYXJlIGNvbW11
bmljYXRpbmcgZS5nLiBERG9TIG1pdGlnYXRpb24gYXBwbGlhbmNlL2Z1bmN0aW9uLCBWaXJ0dWFs
aXplZCBERG9TIG1pdGlnYXRpb24gYXBwbGlhbmNlLCBORlYgRERvUyBtb25pdG9yL21pdGlnYXRp
b24sIERPVFMgUmVjZWl2ZXIsIERPVFMgQ29sbGVjdGluZyBQcm9jZXNzLCBldGMuICBJIGtub3cg
d2UgYWxsIG1pZ2h0IHVzZSBzbGlnaHRseSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdGVybXMgaW4gb3VyIGRhaWx5IGxp
dmVzIHNvIGFncmVlaW5nIG9uIHRoZW0gZm9yIHRoZSBXRyBwdXJwb3NlcyB3aWxsIGJlIGltcG9y
dGFudC4NCltGcmFua106IEFncmVlLiBCdXQgaG93IHRvPw0KDQpbU2NvdHRdIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0
aCBob3cgdGhlIGNvbnZlcnNhdGlvbiB3ZW50IGluIHN1YnNlcXVlbnQgbWVzc2FnZXMuICAgIFRo
ZSBiZXN0IHBhdGggbWF5IGJlIHRvIGp1c3QgZ2l2ZSBuYW1lcyB0byB0aGUgZW5kcG9pbnRzIHJl
cHJlc2VudGluZyBnZW5lcmljIHByb2R1Y2VyL2NvbnN1bWVyIG9wZXJhdGlvbi4gIFRoYXQgd2ls
bCBrZWVwIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gc3BlY2lmaWNzIGZyb20gY3JlZXBpbmcg
aW4uICAgTW9yZSBvbiB0aGlzIGluIG90aGVyIHRocmVhZHOhrQ0KDQoNCk15IGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlv
biBvZiBvdGhlciB1c2UgY2FzZXMgdG8gY29uc2lkZXIgYXJlOg0KDQogIDEuICBJbmJvdW5kIGxp
bmsgc2F0dXJhdGlvbiBhdHRhY2sgqEMgVGhpcyBtYXkgc291bmQgc2ltaWxhciB0byBoeWJyaWQg
dXNlIGNhc2UgaWRlbnRpZmllZCBpbiBib3RoIGRyYWZ0cywgYnV0IHRoZSBwb2ludCBuZWVkcyB0
byBiZSBtYWRlIHRoYXQgaWYgdGhlIGluYm91bmQgbGluayBiZWNvbWVzIHNhdHVyYXRlZCBieSBh
IEREb1MgYXR0YWNrLCBldmVuIHdpdGggYSBERG9TIGFwcGxpYW5jZSB0aGF0IGNhbiBoYW5kbGUg
dGhlIGxvYWQsIHdlIG5lZWQgdG8gbWFrZSBzdXJlIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gcHJv
dG9jb2wgdXNlZCB0byBzaWduYWwgZWl0aGVyIHRoZSB0cmFmZmljIGxldmVsIGRhdGEgb3IgRERv
UyBhbGVydCB3aWxsIG5vdCBmYWlsIGlmIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRyYWZmaWMgaXMgY2F1Z2h0IGJlaGlu
ZCB0aGUgc2F0dXJhdGlvbiBhdHRhY2suICAgSSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFybHkgbGlrZSB0aGlzIHVzZSBj
YXNlIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgaXMgcmVhbCBhbmQgaXQgd2lsbCBlbmZvcmNlIGEgZGlzY2lwbGluZSBv
ZiBmb2N1cyBhbmQgZWZmaWNpZW5jeSBvbiB1cy4gIEl0IGFsc28gd2lsbCBoZWxwIHVzIGlkZW50
aWZ5IGV4YWN0bHkgd2hhdCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBzaWduYWxlZCBpbiBvcmRl
ciBmb3IgdGhlIHVwc3RyZWFtIHByb3ZpZGVyIHRvIHJlcm91dGUgdGhlIG1vc3Qgc3BlY2lmaWMg
ZGF0YSBwb3NzaWJsZSBzbyB0aGF0IGFzIHRoZSBjbG91ZC1iYXNlZCBzY3J1YmJpbmcgY2VudGVy
IGlzbqGvdCBpdHNlbGYgb3ZlcndoZWxtZWQgb3IgdGhlIGNhdXNlIG9mIGV4Y2Vzc2l2ZSBsYXRl
bmN5IHRvIGdvb2QgdHJhZmZpYy4NCltGcmFua106IHdoYXQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gbmVlZHMgdG8g
YmUgc2lnbmFsZWQgaGFzIG5vdGhpbmcgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCB0aGUgaW5ib3VuZCBsaW5rIHNhdHVy
YXRpb24gY29uZGl0aW9uLCB3aGF0IHByb3RvY29sIHRvIGNhcnJ5IHRoZXNlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u
IGRvZXMuIEluIGFkZGl0aW9uLCBkbyB5b3UgaW1wbHkgdGhhdCBET1RTIG1heSBzaWduYWwgdGhl
IHJlcm91dGUgcG9saWN5Pw0KDQpbU2NvdHRdIEkgZGlzYWdyZWUgdGhhdCB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRp
b24gdGhhdCBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBzaWduYWxlZCBoYXMgbm90aGluZyB0byBkbyB3aXRoIHRoZSBz
YXR1cmF0aW9uIGNvbmRpdGlvbi4gIEluIHRoYXQgc2l0dWF0aW9uLCB0aGUgdHJhZmZpYyB3aWxs
IGJlIGRvbWluYXRlZCBieSB0aGUgYXR0YWNrIHRyYWZmaWMsIG1vc3QgbGlrZWx5IHRvIGEgc21h
bGwgc2V0IG9mIHZpY3RpbSBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbnMgYW5kIHBvcnRzIGFuZCBwcm9iYWJseSBmcm9t
IGEgbGFyZ2Ugc2V0IG9mIChyZWZsZWN0ZWQpIHNvdXJjZSBhZGRyZXNzZXMuICAgVGhpcyBpbmZv
cm1hdGlvbiB3b3VsZCBiZSB1c2VmdWwgdG8gdGhlIG90aGVyIHNpZGUgb2YgdGhlIHNpZ25hbGlu
ZyBjaGFubmVsIHRvIChwcm9iYWJseSwgYnV0IG5vdCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSkgcmVzdWx0IGluIGEg
cmVyb3V0ZS4gIEkgYW0gTk9UIHNheWluZyB0aGF0IERPVFMgd2lsbCBiZSBzcGVjaWZ5aW5nIGEg
cmVyb3V0ZSBwb2xpY3kuICBXaGF0IHRvIGRvIHdpdGggdGhlIHNpZ25hbGVkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u
IGlzIGZvciB0aGUgcmVjZWl2ZXIgb2YgdGhlIHNpZ25hbCB0byBkZWNpZGUgYW5kIGlzIG91dCBv
ZiBzY29wZSBmb3IgdXMuDQoNCiAgMS4gIE4vTSBpbmxpbmUgbWl0aWdhdGlvbiB0aHJvdWdoIHRy
YWZmaWMgcmVkaXJlY3Rpb24gqEMgSW4gYW4gaW5saW5lIEREb1MgYXBwbGlhbmNlIHNjZW5hcmlv
IHdpdGggc2V2ZXJhbCAoTSkgbGlua3Mgb3BlcmF0aW5nIGFzIGEgc2luZ2xlIHRydW5rIChlLmcu
IE14MTBHIGxpbmtzKSwgaXQgbWF5IGJlIHRoZSBjYXNlIHRoYXQgb25seSBOIGFwcGxpYW5jZXMg
d291bGQgYmUgZGVwbG95ZWQgaW4gdGhlIHRydW5rIGFuZCBhIEREb1Mgc2lnbmFsIGNvdWxkIGJl
IHNlbnQgdG8gcmVyb3V0ZSBmbG93cyB0aHJvdWdoIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgTiBpbmxpbmUgRERvUyBh
cHBsaWFuY2VzLiAgTm90ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgYWxsIGxvY2FsIGFuZCB3aWxsIGxpa2VseSBo
YXZlIHRoZSBsdXh1cnkgb2YgYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IG5ldHdvcmsgdGhhdCB3aWxs
IG5vdCBiZSBhZmZlY3RlZCBkdXJpbmcgYW4gYXR0YWNrLg0KW0ZyYW5rXTogaW50ZXJlc3Rpbmcu
IEluIHRoaXMgdXNlIGNhc2UsIG1heWJlIGEgY29udHJvbGxlciBpcyBuZWVkZWQgZm9yIHRoZSBj
ZW50cmFsaXplZCBkZWNpc2lvbi4NCltTY290dF0gVGhlIHVzZSBvZiBzb21ldGhpbmcgY2FsbGVk
IGEgY29udHJvbGxlciBvciBob3cgYSBkZWNpc2lvbiBnZXRzIG1hZGUgYmFzZWQgb24gc2lnbmFs
cyB3b3VsZCBiZSBvdXRzaWRlIHRoZSBzY29wZSBvZiBET1RTLiAgIEFsbCBET1RTIG5lZWRzIHRv
IGRvIGlzIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBJUEZJWCAoLWxpa2UpIGluZm8gb3Igc2lnbmFscyBm
cm9tIHNvbWV0aGluZyB3YXRjaGluZy9zYW1wbGluZyB0aGUgZGF0YSB0byBzb21lb25lIHdobyBj
YW4gYWZmZWN0IHRoZSBjaGFuZ2UgaW4gdGhlIGV2ZW50IG9mIGFuIGF0dGFjay4NCg0KICAxLiAg
VmlydHVhbGl6ZWQgRERvUyBtaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGFwcGxpYW5jZSCoQyBJIHJlYWxpemUgdGhlIGV4
YW1wbGUgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiA0IG9mIGRyYWZ0LXhpYSBkZWZpbmVzIE5GViBwZXJoYXBzIGluIHRo
aXMgd2F5LCBidXQgd2UgbmVlZCB0byBoYXZlIDIgdXNlIGNhc2VzIChhdCBsZWFzdCksIG9uZSBm
b3IgdGhlIGJhc2ljIGNhc2Ugb2YgdmlydHVhbGl6aW5nIGFuIGFwcGxpYW5jZSwgY29tcGxldGUg
d2l0aCBhY2Nlc3MgdG8gbmV0d29yayBwb3J0cywgYnV0IHlldCBydW5uaW5nIGluIGEgaHlwZXJ2
aXNvciBhbmQgY2FwYWJsZSBvZiBiZWluZyBzcHVuIHVwIG9yIGRvd24gb24gZGVtYW5kIGluIGZy
b250IG9mIG90aGVyIFZNLWJhc2VkIHNlcnZlcnMgYW5kIHNlcnZpY2VzLiAgICBUaGUgb3RoZXIg
aXMgdGhlIGZ1bGwgTkZWIHNlcnZpY2UtY2hhaW5pbmcgaW5mcmFzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgdGhhdCBjb250
aW51ZXMgdG8gZ2FpbiBtb21lbnR1bSBhcyB3ZWxsLiAgIEJvdGggd2lsbCBleGlzdCBhcyB3ZSBy
b2xsIG91dCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50Lg0KW0ZyYW5rXTogdHdvIE5GViB1c2UgY2FzZXM6IHNpbmds
ZSBWTkYgdnMgTkZWIHNlcnZpY2UtY2hhaW5pbmc/IFdoZXJlIGFyZSB0aGV5IGRlcGxveWVkPw0K
W1Njb3R0XSAgQm90aCBvZiB0aGVzZSBjYXNlcyBoYXZlIHBsZW50eSBvZiBleGFtcGxlcyBvZiBy
ZWFsIG9yIHByb2plY3RlZCBkZXBsb3ltZW50cyBpbiBwcm9kdWN0IGFuZCBzdGFuZGFyZHMgZG9j
dW1lbnRzLiAgIFNvbWUgbWlnaHQgZW5kIHVwIG1vcmUgbGlrZWx5IHRoYW4gb3RoZXJzLCBidXQg
dGhlcmUgYXJlIGVub3VnaCBvZiBlYWNoIHRoYXQgdGhlc2UgdXNlIGNhc2VzIHNob3VsZCBiZSBv
biBvdXIgbGlzdCBzbyB0aGF0IHdlIGNhbiBjaGVja3BvaW50IG91ciBzb2x1dGlvbihzKSBhZ2Fp
bnN0IGRlcGxveW1lbnRzIGluIHRoZXNlIHR5cGVzIG9mIHNjZW5hcmlvcy4NCkmhr20gc3VyZSBJ
IHdpbGwgdGhpbmsgb2YgbW9yZSwgYnV0IEkgd2FudGVkIHRvIGtlZXAgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24g
Z29pbmcgc28gdGhhdCB3ZSBjYW4gZ2V0IGFzIG11Y2ggb24gdGhlIHRhYmxlIGJlZm9yZSB0aGUg
bmV4dCBtZWV0aW5nLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KU2NvdHQNCg0KRnJvbTogRG90cyA8ZG90cy1ib3Vu
Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpkb3RzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+PiBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2Yg
WGlhbGlhbmcgPGZyYW5rLnhpYWxpYW5nQGh1YXdlaS5jb208bWFpbHRvOmZyYW5rLnhpYWxpYW5n
QGh1YXdlaS5jb20+Pg0KRGF0ZTogU3VuZGF5LCBKdW5lIDI4LCAyMDE1IGF0IDEwOjU5IFBNDQpU
bzogImRhbmllbC5taWdhdWx0QGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86ZGFuaWVsLm1pZ2F1bHRAZXJp
Y3Nzb24uY29tPiIgPGRhbmllbC5taWdhdWx0QGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86ZGFuaWVsLm1p
Z2F1bHRAZXJpY3Nzb24uY29tPj4NCkNjOiAiZG90c0BpZXRmLm9yZzxtYWlsdG86ZG90c0BpZXRm
Lm9yZz4iIDxkb3RzQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpkb3RzQGlldGYub3JnPj4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFtE
b3RzXSBNeSBjb21tZW50cyBvbiBkcmFmdC1tZ2x0LWRvdHMtdXNlLWNhc2VzLTAwOg0KDQpIaSBE
YW5pZWwsDQpUaGFua3MgZm9yIGJyaW5naW5nIHRoZSB1c2UgY2FzZSBkcmFmdCBmb3IgRE9UUy4g
SSBoYXZlIHJldmlld2VkIGl0IGFuZCBoYXZlIHNvbWUgY29tbWVudHMgb24gaXQ6DQoxLiBJbiB0
aGUgaW50cm9kdWN0aW9uIHNlY3Rpb24sIHRoZSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgbWFkZSBpbiB0aGUgZmlyc3Qg
cGFyYWdyYXBoICIuLi5tYWtlIEREb1MgYXR0YWNrcyBoYXJkZXIgdG8gYmUgZGV0ZWN0ZWQgYXQg
YSBzaW5nbGUgcG9pbnQiIGlzIGEgbGl0dGxlIHZhZ3VlLiBJIGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIHRoZSBmb2xs
b3dpbmcgZXhhbXBsZXMgb2YgdGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uIGV4cGxhaW4gdGhlIHN0YXRlbWVudCB3ZWxs
LiBUaGV5IGNhbiBiZSBkZXRlY3RlZCBieSBvbmUgZHBpIGRldmljZSBub3dhZGF5cyBpbiBmYWN0
LCB3aGljaCBvbmx5IG5lZWRzIG1vcmUgZmluZS1ncmFpbmVkIG1vbml0b3JpbmcgYW5kIG1vcmUg
ZGV0ZWN0aW5nIGludGVsbGlnZW5jZSwgaS5lLiwgc2lnbmF0dXJlLCBzZXNzaW9uIHN0YXRlIGFu
YWx5c2lzLCBldGMuIFRoZSBjb29yZGluYXRpb24gYmV0d2VlbiBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBhbnRpLWRk
b3Mgc3lzdGVtIGFpbXMgZm9yIG5vdCBvbmx5IGRldGVjdGluZywgYnV0IGFsc28gZm9yIG1pdGln
YXRpbmcgd2l0aCBiZXR0ZXIgYWNjdXJhY3ksIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIGFuZCBlZmZpY2llbmN5LiBN
YXliZSBiZXR0ZXIgZXhhbXBsZXMgY2FuIGJlIG9uLXByZW1pc2UgYW50aS1kZG9zIGRldmljZSBw
bHVzIGFudGktZGRvcyBjbG91ZCBzZXJ2aWNlIGFuZCBhdHRhY2sgc291cmNlIHRyYWNraW5nLCBh
bmQgc28gb247DQoyLiBBY3R1YWxseSwgZGVkaWNhdGVkIGFudGktZGRvcyBhcHBsaWFuY2UgY2Fu
IGRldGVjdCBkZG9zIGF0dGFja3MgYnkgaXRzZWxmIGFuZCBzZW5kIHRoZSBhdHRhY2sgaW5mb21h
dGlvbiB0byBjb250cm9sbGVyIGRpcmVjdGx5LCBub3QgZXZlcnkgZGRvcyBhdHRhY2tzIG5lZWQg
dG8gYmUgZGV0ZXJtaW5lZCBieSB0aGUgY29udHJvbGxlcjsNCjMuIFRoZSBmbG93IHJlcG9zaXRv
cnkgaXMgbm90IGVzc2VudGlhbCBpbiBzb21lIGNhc2VzLCBhbHRob3VnaCBpdCdzIHZlcnkgaW1w
b3J0YW50IGZvciBkZG9zIGNlbnRyYWxpemVkIGFuYWx5c2lzIGJhc2VkIG9uIGZsb3cgaW5mb3Jt
YXRpb24gaW4gbWFueSBjYXNlczsNCjQuIEZvciBPbi1wcmVtaXNlIEFzeW1tZXRyaWMgVXNlIENh
c2UsIHdoeSBkb2VzIGl0IHN0aWxsIG5lZWQgZGRvcyBtb25pdG9yaW5nIGZvciB0aGUgb3V0Ym91
bmQgdHJhZmZpYyBpZiB0aGUgZGRvcyBtaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGlzIG5vdCBwcm92aWRl
ZCBmb3IgaXQ/DQoNCkZZSSwgd2UgaGF2ZSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYW5vdGhlciBET1RTIHVzZSBjYXNl
cyBkcmFmdCB0byBkZXNjcmliZSBzZXZlcmFsIHByb21pc2luZyBET1RTIHVzZSBjYXNlcyBiZWlu
ZyBjb21wbGVtZW50YXJ5IHRvIHlvdXJzLCB5b3VyIHJldmlldyBhbmQgY29tbWVudHMgYXJlIHdl
bGNvbWUuDQoNClRoYW5rcyENCg0KQi5SLg0KRnJhbmsNCg==

--_000_6073823821667642A5C884FF3A8807F81F499217MERCURYcoreroco_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable











Follo=
w-up on some of the specific question embedded below=A1=AD


=
 


Scott=



=
 


=
 






From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Xialiang (Frank)

Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:22 PM

To: Scott Barvick

Cc: daniel.migault@ericsson.com; dots@ietf.org

Subject: [Dots] =B4=F0=B8=B4: My comments on draft=
-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:






 =



Hi Scott,


Thanks for your commen=
ts. My comments are inline:


 






=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=
=CB: Scott
 Barvick [mailto:Scott.Barvick@corero.com]


=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2015=C4=EA6=D4=C230=C8=D5 4:58

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xialiang (Frank); daniel.migault@ericsson.com

=B3=AD=CB=CD: dots@ietf=
.org

=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Dots] My comments on =
draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:






 =





These documents are good=
 starts on capturing the use cases that we will use to drive the requiremen=
ts for our work.






 =







I tend to agree with Fra=
nk=A1=AFs comments below and believe that we have to be careful to not crea=
te complex new architectural components (e.g. Controller or Flow Repository=
) that will limit implementation and deployment
 options =A8C and might not work in some cases (see my #1 below).   Pe=
rhaps it just a case of only 6 use cases out of many more captured so far t=
hat we need to document as an official output of the WG.     &nbs=
p; 


[Frank]: At this initi=
al stage, having different use cases is not a bad thing. Actually, they can=
 help us to consider and discuss more widely and find the right direction t=
o solve the real requirements. DOTS
 work can have a evolving path. Of course, we must focus down to the key us=
e cases and solution in the first stage, then we can extend DOTS work scope=
 to more advanced use cases or solutions.






 =







One thing these document=
s and my contribution below highlight is that we will need to quickly agree=
 on the terms we will use for the endpoints that are communicating e.g. DDo=
S mitigation appliance/function, Virtualized
 DDoS mitigation appliance, NFV DDoS monitor/mitigation, DOTS Receiver, DOT=
S Collecting Process, etc.  I know we all might use slightly different=
 terms in our daily lives so agreeing on them for the WG purposes will be i=
mportant.


[Frank]: Agree. But ho=
w to?


 


[Scott] I agree with h=
ow the conversation went in subsequent messages.    The best=
 path may be to just give names to the endpoints representing generic produ=
cer/consumer operation.  That will keep particular
 implementation specifics from creeping in.   More on this in oth=
er threads=A1=AD


 






 =







My contribution of other=
 use cases to consider are:




    

  1. 
Inbound link saturation attack =A8C This may sound similar to hybrid use ca=
se identified in both drafts, but the point needs to be made that if the in=
bound link becomes saturated by a DDoS attack, even with a DDoS appliance t=
hat can handle the load, we need to
 make sure that the communication protocol used to signal either the traffi=
c level data or DDoS alert will not fail if response traffic is caught behi=
nd the saturation attack.   I particularly like this use case because =
it is real and it will enforce a discipline
 of focus and efficiency on us.  It also will help us identify exactly=
 what information needs to be signaled in order for the upstream provider t=
o reroute the most specific data possible so that as the cloud-based scrubb=
ing center isn=A1=AFt itself overwhelmed or
 the cause of excessive latency to good traffic.



[Frank]: what information needs to be signale=
d has nothing to do with the inbound link saturation condition, what protoc=
ol to carry these information does. In addition, do you imply that DOTS may=
 signal the reroute policy?


[Scott] I disagree that the information that needs to be signaled has not=
hing to do with the saturation condition.  In that situation, the traf=
fic will be dominated by the attack traffic,
 most likely to a small set of victim destinations and ports and probably f=
rom a large set of (reflected) source addresses.   This informati=
on would be useful to the other side of the signaling channel to (probably,=
 but not necessarily) result in a reroute. 
 I am NOT saying that DOTS will be specifying a reroute policy.  What =
to do with the signaled information is for the receiver of the signal to de=
cide and is out of scope for us.


    

  1. 
N/M inline mitigation through traffic redirection =A8C In an inline DDoS ap=
pliance scenario with several (M) links operating as a single trunk (e.g. M=
x10G links), it may be the case that only N appliances would be deployed in=
 the trunk and a DDoS signal could
 be sent to reroute flows through one of the N inline DDoS appliances. &nbs=
p;Note that this is all local and will likely have the luxury of a separate=
 management network that will not be affected during an attack.<=
/li>



[Frank]: interesting. In this use case, maybe=
 a controller is needed for the centralized decision.



[Scott] The use of something called a control=
ler or how a decision gets made based on signals would be outside the scope=
 of DOTS.   All DOTS needs to do is be able to provide IPFIX (-li=
ke) info or signals from something watching/sampling
 the data to someone who can affect the change in the event of an attack.


    

  1. 
Virtualized DDoS mitigation appliance =A8C I realize the example in Section=
 4 of draft-xia defines NFV perhaps in this way, but we need to have 2 use =
cases (at least), one for the basic case of virtualizing an appliance, comp=
lete with access to network ports,
 but yet running in a hypervisor and capable of being spun up or down on de=
mand in front of other VM-based servers and services.    The othe=
r is the full NFV service-chaining infrastructure that continues to gain mo=
mentum as well.   Both will exist as we roll
 out this document.



[Frank]: two NFV use cases: single VNF vs NFV=
 service-chaining? Where are they deployed?



[Scott]  Both of these cases have plenty=
 of examples of real or projected deployments in product and standards docu=
ments.   Some might end up more likely than others, but there are=
 enough of each that these use cases should be on
 our list so that we can checkpoint our solution(s) against deployments in =
these types of scenarios.




I=A1=AFm sure I will thi=
nk of more, but I wanted to keep the discussion going so that we can get as=
 much on the table before the next meeting.






 =







Regards,






Scott<=
/p>





 =







From=
: Dots <<=
a href=3D"mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org">do=
ts-bounces@ietf.org=
>
 on behalf of Xialiang <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>

Date: Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 10:59 PM

To: "daniel.migault@ericsson.com" <daniel.migault@=
ericsson.com>
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>

Subject: [Dots] My comments on draft-mglt-dots-use-cases-00:






 =









Hi Daniel,


Thanks for bringing the =
use case draft for DOTS. I have reviewed it and have some comments on it:


1. In the introduction s=
ection, the statement made in the first paragraph "...make DDoS attack=
s harder to be detected at a single point" is a little vague. I don't =
think the following examples of this section explain
 the statement well. They can be detected by one dpi device nowadays in fac=
t, which only needs more fine-grained monitoring and more detecting intelli=
gence, i.e., signature, session state analysis, etc. The coordination betwe=
en distributed anti-ddos system
 aims for not only detecting, but also for mitigating with better accuracy,=
 performance and efficiency. Maybe better examples can be on-premise anti-d=
dos device plus anti-ddos cloud service and attack source tracking, and so =
on;


2. Actually, dedicated a=
nti-ddos appliance can detect ddos attacks by itself and send the attack in=
fomation to controller directly, not every ddos attacks need to be determin=
ed by the controller;


3. The flow repository i=
s not essential in some cases, although it's very important for ddos centra=
lized analysis based on flow information in many cases;

4. For On-premise Asymme=
tric Use Case, why does it still need ddos monitoring for the outbound traf=
fic if the ddos mitigation function is not provided for it?


 =



FYI, we have submitted a=
nother DOTS use cases draft to describe several promising DOTS use cases be=
ing complementary to yours, your review and comments are welcome.


 =



Thanks!


 =



B.R.

Frank<=
/p>









--_000_6073823821667642A5C884FF3A8807F81F499217MERCURYcoreroco_--


From nobody Tue Jun 30 10:35:59 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9A51B2A09 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WvNHx08qNurJ for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.251.11]) (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 79D731A90DC for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.82.250.19] by server-11.bemta-12.messagelabs.com id 29/A7-24626-B73D2955; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:35:55 +0000
X-Env-Sender: Scott.Barvick@corero.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-87.messagelabs.com!1435685754!30309778!1
X-Originating-IP: [71.184.227.49]
X-StarScan-Received: 
X-StarScan-Version: 6.13.16; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 27402 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2015 17:35:55 -0000
Received: from mercury.corero.com (HELO MERCURY.corero.com) (71.184.227.49) by server-2.tower-87.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jun 2015 17:35:55 -0000
Received: from MERCURY.corero.com ([fe80::2c05:6b26:abe2:ad24]) by MERCURY.corero.com ([fe80::2c05:6b26:abe2:ad24%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:35:54 -0400
From: Scott Barvick 
To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" , "dots@ietf.org" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-transport-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQstnU8kDPSBbHr0W+pFsrtQ7r0Z3EUxHQgAD6f4A=
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:35:53 +0000
Message-ID: <6073823821667642A5C884FF3A8807F81F499763@MERCURY.corero.com>
References: <20150630020939.10497.81039.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A478809EC@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A478809EC@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.20.30.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
Subject: Re: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-transport-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:35:58 -0000

Tiru,

In my read, the goals of this I-D are consistent with the DOTS goals, and t=
his solution attempts to communicate similar data to that of DOTS.  In fact=
, this could be another use case on our list.  However, this is one very sp=
ecific solution with prescribed endpoint behaviors that are not consistent =
with the generality of implementation options that we seek in DOTS.   I'd e=
ncourage you to join the DOTS efforts and help make DOTS support this use c=
ase as well as the other use cases that we are developing.

Regards,
Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tirumaleswar Reddy (=
tireddy)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 11:50 PM
To: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-transport=
-00.txt

This draft discusses mechanisms that a downstream Autonomous System (AS) ca=
n use when it detects a potential DDOS attack, to request an upstream AS to=
 take appropriate action to mitigate the attack.

-Tiru

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]=20
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 7:40 AM
To: Prashanth Patil (praspati); Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Prashanth Pat=
il (praspati); Dan Wing (dwing); Mike Geller (mgeller); Mohamed Boucadair; =
Mike Geller (mgeller); Dan Wing (dwing); Mohamed Boucadair; Tirumaleswar Re=
ddy (tireddy)
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-transport-00.txt


A new version of I-D, draft-reddy-dots-transport-00.txt has been successful=
ly submitted by Tirumaleswar Reddy and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-reddy-dots-transport
Revision:	00
Title:		Co-operative DDoS Mitigation
Document date:	2015-06-29
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		12
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reddy-dots-trans=
port-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-dots-transport=
/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-dots-transport-00


Abstract:
   This document discusses mechanisms that a downstream Autonomous
   System (AS) can use, when it detects a potential Distributed Denial-
   of-Service (DDoS) attack, to request an upstream AS to perform
   inbound filtering in its ingress routers for traffic that the
   downstream AS wishes to drop.  The upstream AS can then undertake
   appropriate actions (including, blackhole, drop, rate-limit, or add
   to watch list) on the suspect traffic to the downstream AS thus
   reducing the effectiveness of the attack.

                                                                           =
      =20


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio=
n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
Dots mailing list
Dots@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots


From nobody Tue Jun 30 18:10:08 2015
Return-Path: 
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E7A1A87AE for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.078
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 GceANEBQSIBQ for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE7B1A87A0 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BUO33896; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 01:10:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.71) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 02:10:01 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.143]) by SZXEMA412-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.71]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:09:55 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" 
To: "Teague, Nik" 
Thread-Topic: [Dots] FW: New Version Notification for draft-reddy-dots-info-model-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQsyDjnzI3nfwHk021RWHSz9eeg53Fzdcg
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 01:09:54 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: <20150630045133.12348.40448.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A47880A75@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.135.43.91]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: 
Cc: "dots@ietf.org" , "Tirumaleswar Reddy \(tireddy\)" 
Subject: [Dots] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEZXOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRp?= =?gb2312?b?b24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LXJlZGR5LWRvdHMtaW5mby1tb2RlbC0wMC50eHQ=?=
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." 
List-Unsubscribe: , 
List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 01:10:07 -0000
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==