Subject: [Dots] Martin Stiemerling's Block on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with BLOCK)

From: "Martin Stiemerling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:43:27 -0700

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?