* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Dots Status Pages

DDoS Open Threat Signaling (Active WG)
Sec Area: Eric Rescorla, Kathleen Moriarty | 2015-Jun-26 —  

IETF-100 dots minutes

Session 2017-11-14 1330-1530: Olivia - Audio stream - dots chatroom


minutes-100-dots-00 minutes

          DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) WG Minutes
          IETF 100
          Tuesday, November 14, 2017
          13:30-15:30, Afternoon session I
          Room: Olivia
          Co-Chairs: Roman Danyliw and Tobias Gondrom
          [Note: the minutes are sequenced according to the planned agenda.
          Due to remote connectivity issues, certain topics were discussed in a
          different order.]
          1. Note well, logistics and introduction
          presenters: Roman Danyliw and Tobias Gondrom (chairs)
          The chairs summarized the status of the working group.  They highlighted:
          ** The use of GitHub (https://github.com/dotswg/) to working copies of
          drafts and issue tracking
          ** The deployment of a public test server for implementers
          ** An updated DOTS WG wiki page (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dots/wiki)
          ** Milestone for informational documents are behind
          2. Use Case Discussion
          presenter: Roland Dobbins
          draft: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-09
          [editor notes:
          Roland Dobbins remotely presented an update on the use case draft,
          Comment: (Flemming Andreasen): I don't think we are ready for WGLC;
          some topics need more discussion.  We should also be spending more time
          on the protocol drafts. 
          Milestone discussion:
          Comment: (Chairs): We encourage all discussion on the use cases to be
          done opening on the mailing list.  It would appear that at least one
          more iteration is needed for WGLC.
          3. Requirements Discussion
          presenter: Andrew Mortensen
          draft: draft-ietf-dots-requirements-07
          Andrew Mortensen remotely presented an update on the requirements draft,
          Comment: (Flemming Andreasen): Resolution of some of the remaining issues
          can be done in the protocol itself (i.e., acl, black/white list, etc).
          It does not need to consider in the requirement draft.
          A: (Andrew Mortensen): I'm fine with that approach.
          Milestone discussion:
          Comment: (Chairs): Is there any known issues that would preclude WGLC?
                           : None heard.
                           : Chairs will start a WGLC in the next 2 weeks with a
                           2 week duration for comments.
          4. Architecture Discussion
          presenter: Andrew Mortensen
          draft: draft-ietf-dots-architecture-05
          Andrew Mortensen remotely presented an update on the architecture draft,
          Q: (Andrew Mortensen): Does the latest draft adequately cover the NAT
          issues on the mailing list?
          A: (Kaname Nishizuka): For mobile users, the 2 channels are separated. The
          private IP space use cases may exist.
          Q: (?): Why we need to consider multi-homing?
          A: (Andrew Mortensen): I don't think the multi-homing is needed in the
          architecture draft, but additional changes are being discussed.
          A: (Flemming Andreasen): I agree with Andrew. Certain text changes can
          be accepted, but a new appendix is not necessary.
          A: (Roland Dobbins): I agree with Andrew and Flemming.
          A: (Roman Danyliw as individual): I have the same questions on how to
          handle the multi-homing content -- appendix, an individual draft, or
          something else?
          A: (Roman Danyliw as chair): Let's defer the conversation until after
          the multi-homing presentation.
          Milestone discussion:
          Q: (Chairs): When can you finish a document ready for WGLC?  Next month?
          A: (Andrew Mortensen): Yes.
          A: (Chairs): Then we can proceed to a WGLC next month.
          5. Protocol Discussion
          Hackathon activity report
          presenter: Kaname Nishizuka
          Kaname Nishizuka presented on the DOTs-related work during the Hackathon
          held on November 11 - 12.  In addition to new code development,
          interoperability testing was conducted between three implementations.
          Comment: (Roman Danyliw): Thank you for this work!
          Q: (Roman Danyliw) In the inter-op results, can you clarify the column
          with Huawei's code?
          A: (Kaname Nishizuka): Huawei's implementation added feature and extension
          for DOTS protocols based on the go-dots open source project. It aims to
          justify the DOTS protocol can work on those added features and extensions
          as well through their internal test.
          Q: (?): How many use cases were covered in this Hackathon?
          A: (Kaname Nishizuka): As our first interoperability test, we covered
          part of use cases, but not all. We tested the basic use cases from the
          protocol exchange aspect.
          Q: (Roman Danyliw): Did you do any testing on the data channel?
          A: (Kaname Nishizuka): Not this time due to time constraints. It will
          be explored at the next IETF meeting.
          Q: (Chairs): Are there any other companies interested in joining the
          next Hackathon?
          A: (Andrew Mortensen): Arbor Networks is hoping to have news in the near
          Command: (Chairs): Please Kaname any remaining open questions about the
          Hackathon to the mailing list, and pulls to github.
          presenter: Mohamed Boucadair
          drafts: draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-07
                : draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-07
          Mohamed Boucadair provided an update on the DOTS signal,
          draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel, and data channel,
          draft-ietf-dots-data-channel, drafts.
          Per Slide 9:
          Q: (Chairs): Per the change related to lower number mitigation-id being
          automatically deleted, any concerns by the WG (this was a topic during
          the interim meeting and on the mailing list)?
          A: (Sajid ?): What is the criteria of deleting the automatic deletion?
          A: (Mohamed Boucadair): We assume that the latest request reflects the
          up to date situation of dots client, but is under more discussion. One
          problem is that different clients have respective views, how to handle
          them without silo effects, we like to hear more from the WG.
          A: (Flemming Andreasen): is it the per client based management? If
          it's not, I have concerns, since there are then assumptions that some
          coordination exists.  We need more discussion
          A: (Mohamed Boucadair): it's not per client way, it's per domain.
          A: (Roland Dobbins): I have concerns about ACLs support on DOTS protocol,
          as they are router specific. we need to discuss more about it.
          Per Slide 5:
          Q: (Tobias Gondrom): Can you clarify the lifetime design rational? Do
          we even need to specific the value of it? The real world situations will
          be varied.
          A: (Mohamed Boucadair): It's just the recommended value. Operators can
          set one that is appropriate.
          A: (Tobias Gondrom as an individual): recommended value works for me,
          but as a default value is my concern.
          Per Slide #11:
          Q: (Mohamed Boucadair): Any questions or feedback on supporting the
          mutual authentication? Certificates, TLS-PSK, or RSK? or all of them?
          A: (Bob Moskowitz): In addition to EST, any other mechanisms is in
          A: (Mohamed Boucadair): Of course, we can consider more in the protocol.
          A: (Bob Moskowitz): One recommended, more can be used, such as: BRSKI
          in ANIMA, ...
          A: (Roman Danyliw): How many authentication methods should be covered
          in DOTS protocol, how to handle the optionality?
          A: (Bob Moskowitz): Certificates, TLS-PSK, and RSK are ought to be
          : (Flemming Andreasen): which mode to use is decided by the DOTS server.
          : (Bob Moskowitz): yes
          Q: (Chairs): Have you take a look of go-dots implementation of the DOTS
          A: (Mohamed Boucadair): We have discussed some issues in interim meeting
          and mailing list until now. We still need to track the latest result of
          Hackathon to follow new issues.
          presenter: Mohamed Boucadair
          draft: draft-boucadair-dots-multihoming-02
          Mohamed Boucadair provided an update on the individual DOTS Multi-homing
          draft, draft-boucadair-dots-multihoming.
          Comment: (Roland Dobbins): I don't think we need to go into that level
          of detail in a draft.
          A: (Flemming Andreasen): As the architecture draft co-author, I am not
          in favor of include this multi-homing topic as the appendix. I think
          architecture draft already covers enough multi-homing content.
          A: (Chairs): How about an individual draft?
          A: (Flemming Andreasen): No idea.
          Q: (Chairs): How many people have reviewed this draft?
                     : Not very many from the poll in the room.
          Comment: (Flemming Andreasen): Right now, we need to put more energy on
          the protocol drafts. As Med mentioned, there is no identified impact on
          the dots protocol, so I don't think we need to do it right now. I prefer
          to defer this work.
          A: (Roland Dobbins): Agree.
          A: (Chairs): This draft needs more discussion on the mailing list after
          there are more reviewers.
          presenter: Mohamed Boucadair
          draft: draft-boucadair-dots-server-discovery-03
          Mohamed Boucadair provided an update on the individual DOTS Server
          discovery draft, draft-boucadair-dots-server-discovery.
          Comment: (Tobias Gondrom as individual): Using RFC2119 terms
          (MUST...) might be too strong; "must" is better.
          Comment: (Flemming Andreasen): We don't need so many options for auto
          discovery. Perhaps it should be based on the use cases and recommend one.
          A: (Mohamed Boucadair): Can you help us to focus?
          A: (Roland Dobbins): We need to finish the basic DOTS protocol ASAP.
          Auto discovery is getting ahead of ourselves now, and depending on DNS
          usage should not be considered.
          A: (Tobias Gondrom as individual): Generally agree the idea of auto
          discovery, it's useful.
          A: (Flemming Andreasen): Concur.
          A: (Chairs): We encourage more reviews and discussion on the mailing
          list. We will add this topic to the interim meeting agenda.
          6. Closing
          Open Mic
          Q: (Chairs): Why are there not more vendors involved in the implementation
          A: (Roland Dobbins): Some vendors are waiting the standard to be finished
          and to do the implementation
          A: (Kathleen Moriarty): Maybe there are some implementation that we don't
          know about. TLS WG is a good example -- they are doing the implementation
          together with the standard design
          A: (Tobias Gondrom): If any vendors are interested in the protocol
          implementation, we as the chairs can talk with them and provide our help.
          Action summary
          The chairs summarized the draft actions from the meeting:
          ** draft-ietf-dots-use-cases: is not ready for WGLC; needs at least one
          more revision
          ** draft-ietf-dots-requirements: ready for WGLC; will start in early
          December 2017
          ** draft-ietf-dots-architecture: is not ready for WGLC; will be updated
          in December 2017; WGLC in January

Generated from PyHt script /wg/dots/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -