DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) WG Virtual Interim Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1400-1530 UTC 1. Note well, logistics and introduction ======================================== Presenters: Roman Danyliw, Tobias Gondrom Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/06/21/dots/slides/slides-interim-2016-dots-1-0.pdf The chairs presented a summary of the working group's activities. Approximately 13 - 16 participants were online through-out the virtual interim meeting. 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 document. 2. Use Case Discussion ====================== Existing drafts: - draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-01 - draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-usecases-01 - Use cases of draft-nishizuka-dots-inter-domain-mechanism-00 Use Case drafts --------------- Presenters: Roland Dobbins and Daniel Migault Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/06/21/dots/slides/slides-interim-2016-dots-1-1.pdf 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 required later. Comment (Roland Dobbins): new -02 draft should be complete for review by June 30, 2016 Unique Use Cases ---------------- Presenter: Kaname Nishizuk Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/06/21/dots/slides/slides-interim-2016-dots-1-4.pdf 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 deconflict later. 3. Requirements Discussion ========================== Presenter: Andrew Mortensen Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/06/21/dots/slides/slides-interim-2016-dots-1-2.pdf Existing draft: - draft-ietf-dots-requirements-01 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 Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2016/06/21/dots/slides/slides-interim-2016-dots-1-3.pdf Existing draft: - draft-mortensen-dots-architecture-00 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 complexity. 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? A: Yes A: Q (chairs): Should we schedule a design team meetings the current drafts? A: Yes A: 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.