Subject: [Dots] Benoit Claise's Yes on charter-ietf-dots-00-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:32:41 -0700

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: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:22:29 -0400

Hi, Benoit.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:43:49 +0200

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 <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots