Minutes interim-2016-dots-02: Tue 10:00
DDoS Open Threat Signaling
||Minutes interim-2016-dots-02: Tue 10:00
DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) WG
Virtual Interim Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
1. Note well, logistics and introduction
Presenters: Roman Danyliw, Tobias Gondrom
The chairs presented a summary of the working group's activities.
Approximately 18 participants were online through-out the virtual interim
Comment: (Andrew Mortensen) The architecture draft is missing a milestone
Q (Roman Danyliw): Does the WG have any concern about meeting the existing
milestones? A (Flemming Andreasen): No.
2. Use Case Discussion
Use Case draft
Presenters: Roland Dobbins
Draft: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-02 (unpublished)
Dobbins summarized progress on producing the -02 draft.
Q (Roman Danyliw): When will a new use cases draft be ready?
A (Roland Dobbins): -02 should be published by Friday, October 7.
A (Flemming Andreasen): The sooner the document could be reviewed, the better.
Dobbins and Migault discussed progress on consolidating the current three use
Additional Use Cases
Presenter: Kaname Nishizuk
(Note during that during the interim meeting, this presentation occurred after
Item #3, data and information models)
Nishizuk discussed updates to additional use cases.
Comment (Bob Moskowitz): Don't introduce another client-id into the data model.
3. Data and Information Model(s) Discussion
Information and Data Model
Presenter: Flemming Andreasen
Flemming introduced the working group to a new information and data model draft.
Q (Flemming Andreasen): Any early feedback on the structure?
A (Andrew Mortensen): It looks good.
A (Tobias Gondrom): It looks good.
Comment (Andrew Mortensen): All status information should be bundled together.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): Agree with approach to loosely couple signal and data
Comment (Andrew Mortensen): It appears that anycast is being incorporated in
the architecture. This might make the ability to redirect message less
dependent on the network Comment (Roland Dobbins): Redirection is a best
operational practice but should not be a mandatory requirement/
Comment (Tiru Reddy): What's the role of the lower level protocol in
Q (Daniel Migault): Is there a Yang model coming?
A (Flemming Andreasen): At this point, this draft is staying less formal
A (Bob Moskowitz): I2NSF has adopted Yang
4. Protocol drafts
Presenter: Tiru Reddy
Reddy introduced a new data channel draft.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): White and black lists will introduce complexity.
Comment (Roland Dobbins): Telemetry is another area that is above and beyond
what is needed for "minimal viability". Comment (Flemming Andreasen): We'll
have to discuss what is the "minimal viable" vs. what is an extension
Comment (Andrew Mortensen): Since both the data and signal channel are using
CoAP, why split them into separate channels? Comment (Flemming Andreasen): Is
there a need for a separate data and signal channel using the same transport?
Comment (Andrew Mortensen): Using REST, a well-known approach, for the data
channel is help with adoption.
Presenter: Prashanth Patil
Patil introduced a new signal channel draft.
Comment (Andrew Mortensen): Why is DTLS appropriate for the signal channel
given the need for a heartbeat?
5. Open discussion and additional business
There was no new business.
Comment (Nik Teague): Using JSON appears to have fallen out of favor. Do we
want an alternative? Comment (Prashanth Patil): Good point. Maybe CBOR should
be explored. More discussion is required.
Roland Dobbins provided an Arbor Networks perspective on recent DDOS activities
in the news (e.g., Krebs)
Q (Tobias Gondrom): Who else should we be trying to attract to the WG?
A (Roland Dobbins): Akamai
6. Closing discussion and way ahead summary
Comment (Roman Danyliw): Please watch the mailing list for the schedule of
design team meetings during IETF 97.