Subject: Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-16 (Sections 8-10)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 14:22:57 +0000

Hi Ben,

Please see inline for this specific comment. Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dots <[email-masked]> De la part de Benjamin Kaduk
> Envoyé : mardi 28 décembre 2021 03:39
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email-masked]>
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: [Dots] AD review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-16 (Sections 8-
> 10)
> 
> Hi Med,
> 
...
> >
> > >
> > > Also (editorial), I think we should be more clear about when we
> > > switch from describing RFC 9132 behavior to to describing the new
> > > functionality provided by this document.
> > >
> > >    Figure 46 shows an example of an asynchronous notification of
> attack
> > >    mitigation status from the DOTS server.  This notification
> > > signals
> > >
> > > Is the "new stuff" in Figure 46 just the subtree under
> > > :(server-to-client- only)?
> 
> Oops, I think I meant the tree diagram prior to figure 46, which does not
> seem to have a dedicated label

[Med] Aah, I see. Added a label for it. It is now Figure 46. This tree is about what the server can send in an update. Except the nodes under "server-to-client-only", a server can send in an update the same telemetry nodes as the client can do in an efficacy update (figure 44).

We don't omit the common nodes as this is about distinct operations. 

 (or "anchor" attribute in the XML).  I can
> see how that made the question confusion; sorry about that.
> 
> > [Med] What is new is what is indicated right after the text you quoted:
> >
> > " This notification signals
> >    both the mid-percentile value of processed attack traffic and the
> >    peak count of unique sources involved in the attack. "
> >
> >
> > this can be identified in the figure by looking at items that are
> prefixes with "ietf-dots-telemetry:".
> >
> >
> >  The 'total-attack-traffic' leaf seems to be the same content as in
> > > Figure 45, and maybe could be omitted?
> >
> > [Med] Please note this is not for the same mid. Putting that aside, the
> one in Figure 45 is what is seen by the client, while figure 46 as about
> the server's view. Changed the total attack traffic value to avoid
> inducing readers to assume a correlation between the two.
> 
> (So this comment was attempting to compare two tree diagrams, which
> obviously did not come across properly to you.)  Note that I must have
> meant the other tree diagram in figure 44, not the example message in
> figure 45.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.