On 13 Sep 2016, at 9:03, Warren Kumari wrote:
The authors have attempted to integrate / incorporate all comments received.
...and the draft is looking really good now.
One of the main changes was suggested by Jinmei ("we might want to
follow the style of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-04."), and resulted
in Section 6 - Benefits.
It's nice to have it there in one place.
I'd really appreciate a review of this section, especially the last 2 paragraphs (starting with): "[ Editor note: There has been some discussion on if this document should discuss this attack and mitigation. The authors think that this is useful / important, but some participants feel that it oversells the DoS mitigation benefit. Please let us know if thebelow is helpful. Also, the below description is not as clear as itcould be - it's been tricky to balance readability, correctness and conciseness. Text gratefully accepted... ]"
Discussions of DoS attacks and mitigations get bogged down quickly; see, for example, the past year or two in the IPsecME WG. It is safe to assume that if a method prevents a type of DoS attack, attackers will find another way to mount the attack. The current wording describes one type of attack, and how this helps mitigate it. That's sufficient: you don't need to say "and therefore you SHOULD use this method to avoid attacks".
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
