Subject: [Dots] Questions/Comments on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-04 content --

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:45:39 -0400

Y'all -- this email contains questions and comments about the technical content of the requirements draft.

😊 /r

==
GEN-001

It seems like this might solved with a version number system that requires older version to ignore newer information; this might an option to support this requirement, but it is not obvious from the text if so.

==
GEN-002

There is nothing here about error correction or delivery assurance -- should there be? This might be covered someplace else, but I've not seen it yet.

==
GEN-004

Why not set Do Not Fragment? Is the concern for performance on boxes, or ... ??

==
OP-001

I would prefer to say "connectionless," to leave the door open for QUIC -- unless there is an intent to write a separate draft for DOTS transport over QUIC.

==
OP-004

To protect against route or DNS flapping caused by a client rapidly toggling mitigation...

It seems another option here might be some form of exponential backoff, which might be more effective than a five minute rule. It might be worth studying and/or allowing both options.

==
OP-008

Okay -- but should the servers try to merge the conflicting requests, ignore both of them, or... ? Notfying is good, but there seems to want to be some other action here, as well. 

Another issue -- what if multiple servers send conflicting requests to a single mitigator? This seems to warrant the same sort of text, along with some idea of what action should be taken.

==
3.1 seems to conflict with OP-001, above -- in one place, UDP is "MAY," in the other, it seems to be "MUST." Which is accurate? Again, it seems wise to allow for QUIC, as well.