Minutes for DOTS at interim-2016-dots-01
DDoS Open Threat Signaling
||Minutes for DOTS at interim-2016-dots-01
DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) WG
Virtual Interim Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
1. Note well, logistics and introduction
Presenters: Roman Danyliw, Tobias Gondrom
The chairs presented a summary of the working group's activities.
Approximately 13 - 16 participants were online through-out the virtual interim
Q: The milestones indicate data model and transport drafts. Should any current
drafts be designated as such? A (chairs): Not yet. Some of the current
solutions oriented drafts include both a data model and transport in a single
2. Use Case Discussion
- Use cases of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00
Use Case drafts
Presenters: Roland Dobbins and Daniel Migault
Dobbins and Migault discussed progress on consolidating the current three use
case drafts into a single document, draft-dots-use-cases-02.
Q (Andrew Mortensen): How does the process section overlap with the
architecture draft? A (Roland Dobbins): Not significantly. This section is
intended to show examples or categories of use cases. A (Tobias Gondrom):
Please document the text somewhere and we can deconflict between drafts as
Comment (Roland Dobbins): new -02 draft should be complete for review by June
Unique Use Cases
Presenter: Kaname Nishizuk
Nishizuk discussed the unique use cases present in the three use case drafts.
Comment (Frank Liang Xia): Use case #3 and 7 are the same.
A (Roland Dobbins): They are trying to call out different scenarios. A balance
needs to be found in consolidating use cases. A (Frank Liang Xia): The
signaling is not different between these use cases. A (Roland Dobbins):
Aggregation at a policy point may be different; not just a inter/intra domain
consideration A (Tobias Gondrom): Please make one document and we can
3. Requirements Discussion
Presenter: Andrew Mortensen
Mortensen discussed progress and open issues in the requirements draft.
Q (Flemming Andreasen): When should feedback be provided? Should we wait until
-02 is released? A (Andrew Mortensen): No need to wait.
Q (Flemming Andreasen): Where are the data model requirements?
A (Andrew Mortensen): They're missing and still needed. There won't be any in
-02. A (Flemming Andreasen): I recommend adding a placeholder section for them.
A (Andrew Mortensen): Makes sense.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): The use case editors don't see new requirements to
add from the use cases.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): There was a comment on the mailing list that it is
easy for clients to authenticate to a server, but the reverse is difficult. We
definitely need mutual authentication.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): There was a comment on the mailing list to eliminate
relay as a node type (but leave it as a function). This might add additional
requirements onto the client and servers.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): There was a comment on the mailing list concerning
congestion. More discussion is needed to determine how communication channel
failure is handled.
Comment (Nik Teague): Consider adding text from the architecture draft's
Security Considerations into the requirements draft.
Comment (Andrew Mortensen): The requirements draft team needs to review the use
case drafts to find any conflicts. Comment (Frank Liang Xia): This is
important. I can help.
4. Architecture Discussion
Presenter: Andrew Mortensen
Mortensen discussed progress and open issues in the architecture draft. Per an
accepted call for adoption at IETF 95, the next version of this draft will be
submitted as a WG document.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): Do we need to distinguish between server and client?
Maybe just peers?
Comment (Roland Dobbins): It will be challenging to rely on DNS during an
attack. Comment (Andrew Mortensen): Understood, the current DNS usage occurs
only at provisioning. It doesn't make during an attack.
Comment (Flemming Andreasen): It may be useful to have a client server. There
are operational differences in their behaviors. Do we need distinct node types
or just properties? Comment (Nik Teague): There are definitely various roles
but they may switch during the attack. Discovering capabilities can add
Q (Tobias Gondrom): As to the presentation made at MAAWG Nik, is Verisign a
member? A (Nik Teague): Yes. A (Tobias Gondrom): Any other requirements from
MAAWG discussion? A (Andrew Mortensen): This was their first introduction.
There wasn't clarity on what the WG was doing. A (Roland Dobbins): Who
presented? A (Andrew Mortensen): C. Gray (Comcast) and R. Compton (Charter)
5. Open discussion and additional business
There was no new business. There was discussion about planning design meetings
during IETF 96:
Q (chairs): Should we schedule a design team meeting for implementers?
Q (chairs): Should we schedule a design team meetings the current drafts?
Comment: Please schedule an interim meeting between IETF 96 and 97.
A (chairs): Yes.
6. Closing discussion and way ahead summary
Comment (Roman Danyliw): Please watch the mailing list for the schedule of
design team meetings during IETF 96.