Skip to main content

Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel Specification
draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-31

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-05-27
31 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-05-11
31 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-02-27
31 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2020-02-26
31 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2020-01-07
31 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2019-08-26
31 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Sarah Banks was marked no-response
2019-08-22
31 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Shaun Cooley was marked no-response
2019-08-19
31 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-08-19
31 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2019-08-16
31 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-08-13
31 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-08-13
31 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2019-08-13
31 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-08-13
31 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-08-13
31 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-08-13
31 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2019-08-13
31 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-08-13
31 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2019-08-12
31 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-08-12
31 Benjamin Kaduk RFC Editor Note was changed
2019-08-12
31 Benjamin Kaduk RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2019-08-12
31 Benjamin Kaduk RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated
2019-07-22
31 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss!
2019-07-22
31 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-07-21
31 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-31.txt
2019-07-21
31 (System) New version approved
2019-07-21
31 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K
2019-07-21
31 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-07-03
30 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-30.txt
2019-07-03
30 (System) New version approved
2019-07-03
30 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K
2019-07-03
30 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-05-21
29 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
2019-05-21
29 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-05-09
29 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and comments.
2019-05-09
29 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2019-05-09
29 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-05-09
29 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-05-09
29 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-29.txt
2019-05-09
29 (System) New version approved
2019-05-09
29 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K
2019-05-09
29 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-05-02
28 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for a well written document. It was a pleasure to read.

I have a small set of issues that I would …
[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for a well written document. It was a pleasure to read.

I have a small set of issues that I would like to be fixed before recommending approval of this document.

1) resolved

2)

5.1.  Registering DOTS Clients

  In order to make use of DOTS data channel, a DOTS client MUST
  register to its DOTS server(s) by creating a DOTS client ('dots-
  client') resource.  To that aim, DOTS clients SHOULD send a POST
  request (shown in Figure 11).

    POST /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data HTTP/1.1
    Host: {host}:{port}
    Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
    {
      "ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-client": [
        {
          "cuid": "string"
        }
      ]
    }

Your example is syntactically invalid, as you need an empty line after the Content-Type header field (before the payload).

The same issue is pretty much in every example in your document.

3) resolved
2019-05-02
28 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In 7.1 (on page 49):

    Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
    {
    "ietf-dots-data-channel:capabilities": {

This is not a valid response. Firstly, …
[Ballot comment]
In 7.1 (on page 49):

    Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
    {
    "ietf-dots-data-channel:capabilities": {

This is not a valid response. Firstly, the status-line is missing Secondly, you are missing the empty line before the payload.
2019-05-02
28 Alexey Melnikov Ballot comment and discuss text updated for Alexey Melnikov
2019-05-02
28 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2019-05-02
28 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-05-02
28 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
I did not have a chance to review this document but I am balloting No Objection on the basis of the Gen-ART review.
2019-05-02
28 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-05-02
28 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot discuss]
I support Suresh's discuss that the process of how it is indicated if a 1 or 2 byte mask is used is not …
[Ballot discuss]
I support Suresh's discuss that the process of how it is indicated if a 1 or 2 byte mask is used is not clear. However, I would additionally like to discuss why this bit mask is needed at all. The TCP flags field in RFC8519 is already defined as bits. Storing these bits in a signal 8 bit field and applying a matching operation is implementation specific only and doesn't require any changes to the YANG model.

I would also quickly like to discuss the use of keep-alives as described in Section 3.1:
"While the communication to the DOTS server is
  quiescent, the DOTS client MAY probe the server to ensure it has
  maintained cryptographic state.  Such probes can also keep alive
  firewall and/or NAT bindings.  A TLS heartbeat [RFC6520] verifies
  that the DOTS server still has TLS state by returning a TLS message."
I understood that multiple requests can and should be send in the same connection, however, I would expect that those requests are send basically right after each other, such as a look-up and then change of the config. I don't see a need to keep up the connection for a long time otherwise. Especially any action performed are (other than in the signal channel case) not time critical. Therefore I would rather recommend to close and reopen connections and not recommend to use keep-alives at all.
2019-05-02
28 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Editorial comment: As alias and migration-scope (in the signal channel document) have the same fields, wouldn't it make sense to only definite it …
[Ballot comment]
Editorial comment: As alias and migration-scope (in the signal channel document) have the same fields, wouldn't it make sense to only definite it once somewhere?
2019-05-02
28 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-05-01
28 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]

Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. Alexey covered all of my
substantive comments, and I support his DISCUSS; I only have …
[Ballot comment]

Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. Alexey covered all of my
substantive comments, and I support his DISCUSS; I only have a few editorial
nits to suggest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ID Nits reports:

  ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one
    being 5 characters in excess of 72.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.4:

>  its own information (e.g., server names, literal IP addresses) is
>  present in the "Via" header of a DOTS message it receives:

Nit: "...header field..."

>    header, the DOTS gateway MUST NOT forward the DOTS message.

Nit: "...header field..."

>  error-info:      : A copy of the Via header when

Nit: "...header field..."

>  o  Otherwise, the DOTS agent MUST update or insert the "Via" header
>    by appending its own information.

Nit: "...header field..."

>  DOTS client domain SHOULD remove the previous "Via" header
>  information after checking for a loop before forwarding.  This

Nit: "...header field..."
2019-05-01
28 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-05-01
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
I am the document shepherd and was the WG co-chair during the development of this draft.
2019-05-01
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to Recuse from No Objection
2019-05-01
28 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-05-01
28 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot discuss]
* Section 4.3

The processing requirements for the tcp flags bitmask is not at all clear. Specifically how should an implementation use the …
[Ballot discuss]
* Section 4.3

The processing requirements for the tcp flags bitmask is not at all clear. Specifically how should an implementation use the values in the flags, operator and the bitmask fields in the tcp subtree to figure out if a given packet matches. An example here could be very helpful.

"Bitmask values can be encoded as a 1- or 2-byte bitmask."

How? The bitmask field is a uint16. How would a client indicate a 1 byte bitmask?

[Also note that there are *nine* flags defined for TCP including the experimental NS bit that occurs as bit 7 of Octet 12 and a 1 byte bitmask will not catch them all]
2019-05-01
28 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
How does the flags field in the ipv4 match subtree interact with the bits in the fragment side? I can easily see that …
[Ballot comment]
How does the flags field in the ipv4 match subtree interact with the bits in the fragment side? I can easily see that someone can make a mistake due to this redundancy and come up with something that is not coherent. e.g. bit "more" under flags is set and bit "lf" under fragment-> type is also set .
2019-05-01
28 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-05-01
28 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this - I found it useful and interesting.

I do have a few comments / suggestions to try improve …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this - I found it useful and interesting.

I do have a few comments / suggestions to try improve the document further.

1:  "In most cases, sufficient scale can be achieved by compromising enough end-hosts and using those infected hosts to perpetrate and amplify the attack."
This is somewhat misleading - it sounds somewhat like the reflectors which get used for amplification attacks (e.g DNS servers) have been compromised. Perhaps "In most cases, sufficient scale can be achieved by compromising enough end-hosts or using amplification attacks" - in the grand scheme of things this isn't super important, but because it is so close to the beginning of the document it would be nice to set the tone correctly...

2: "After discovering the RESTCONF API root, a DOTS client uses this value as the initial part of the path in the request URI, in any subsequent request to the DOTS server."
The commas seem superfluous, and make reading this hard.

3: "It is RECOMMENDED that DOTS clients and gateways support means to alert administrators about loop errors so that appropriate actions are undertaken."
Truly a nit, but I had to reread this sentence multiple times before I got it -- I would suggest s/means/methods/ (or "provide methods").

4: TCP flags. It is really common to match on "Established" sessions (or packets with or without the SYN flag -- I think it would be **really** helpful to describe how this is done / have an example, etc. While readers should be able to figure this out, it would be helpful to have this so people can find it in a panic. Actually, more examples in the Appendix would be generally useful...

5: "The DOTS gateway, that inserted a ’cdid’ in a PUT request, MUST strip the ’cdid’ parameter in the corresponding response before forwarding the response to the DOTS client."
Extra commas...
2019-05-01
28 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-05-01
28 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
Alexey has this well covered, and I support his DISCUSS.
2019-05-01
28 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2019-05-01
28 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for a well written document. It was a pleasure to read.

I have a small set of issues that I would …
[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for a well written document. It was a pleasure to read.

I have a small set of issues that I would like to be fixed before recommending approval of this document.

1) In 3.1:

  DOTS data channel configuration information as well as state
  information can be retrieved with the GET method.  An HTTP status-
  line header field is returned for each request to report success or

I know this text is copied from RFC 8040, but "status-line header field"
is not correct. It is either "status-line" or "header field".
(A header field always has ":" in it and HTTP status-line doesn't).
I think you meant the former.

If I misundestood and this is a part of payload itself, then your document should have an example.

  failure for RESTCONF operations (Section 5.4 of [RFC8040]).  The
  "error-tag" provides more information about encountered errors
  (Section 7 of [RFC8040]).

2)

5.1.  Registering DOTS Clients

  In order to make use of DOTS data channel, a DOTS client MUST
  register to its DOTS server(s) by creating a DOTS client ('dots-
  client') resource.  To that aim, DOTS clients SHOULD send a POST
  request (shown in Figure 11).

    POST /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data HTTP/1.1
    Host: {host}:{port}
    Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
    {
      "ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-client": [
        {
          "cuid": "string"
        }
      ]
    }

Your example is syntactically invalid, as you need an empty line after the Content-Type header field (before the payload).

The same issue is pretty much in every example in your document.

3) In the same section 5.1:

  DOTS servers can identify the DOTS client domain using the 'cdid'
  parameter or using the client's DNS name specified in the Subject
  Alternative Name extension's dNSName type or SRV-ID in the client
  certificate.

SRV-ID needs a Normative reference to RFC 6125.

Also, can you give an example of how SRV-ID is going to be used?
2019-05-01
28 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In 6.1:

  name:  Name of the alias.

      This is a mandatory attribute.

Are there any restrictions on which characters …
[Ballot comment]
In 6.1:

  name:  Name of the alias.

      This is a mandatory attribute.

Are there any restrictions on which characters can appear in aliases?

In 7.1 (on page 49):

    Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
    {
    "ietf-dots-data-channel:capabilities": {

This is not a valid response. Firstly, the status-line is missing Secondly, you are missing the empty line before the payload.

In 7.2 (on page 52):

  The DOTS server indicates the result of processing the POST request
  using the status-line header.

Again, drop "header" after status-line. For clarity you can say "the HTTP status-line".
2019-05-01
28 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-04-30
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Full disclosure: I am the document shepherd and was the WG co-chair during the development of this draft.
2019-04-30
28 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2019-04-29
28 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-04-24
28 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2019-04-05
28 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2019-04-03
28 Amy Vezza Telechat date has been changed to 2019-05-02 from 2019-04-11
2019-04-03
28 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-04-11
2019-04-02
28 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
As in the signal-channel document, there are a couple of nits in the text about
using FQDNs as mitigation targets:

Section 10

  …
[Ballot comment]
As in the signal-channel document, there are a couple of nits in the text about
using FQDNs as mitigation targets:

Section 10

  When FQDNs are used as targets, the DOTS server MUST rely upon DNS
  privacy enabling protocols (e.g., DNS over TLS [RFC7858], DoH
  [RFC8484]) to prevent eavesdroppers from possibly identifying the
  target resources protected by the DDoS mitigation service and means
  to ensure the target FQDN resolution is authentic (e.g., DNSSEC 
  [RFC4034]). 

nits: "DNS over TLS or DoH" ("or" instead of comma, but keep the
references as-is); comma before "and means to ensure", since the DOTS
server has to do both of those (as opposed to the DOTS server using DoT/DoH
which provides both eavesdropping protection and data authenticity, which
is what the current text says).
2019-04-02
28 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot comment text updated for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-04-02
28 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot has been issued
2019-04-02
28 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-04-02
28 Benjamin Kaduk Created "Approve" ballot
2019-04-02
28 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot writeup was changed
2019-03-28
28 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2019-03-28
28 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-28.txt
2019-03-28
28 (System) New version approved
2019-03-28
28 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K
2019-03-28
28 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-03-16
27 Brian Trammell Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Trammell. Sent review to list.
2019-03-13
27 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2019-03-07
27 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2019-03-06
27 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2019-03-06
27 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns registry on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single, new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-dots-data-channel
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-data-channel
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the YANG Module Names registry on the YANG Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/

a single, new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-dots-data-channel
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-data-channel
Prefix: data-channel
Module:
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

While the YANG module name will be registered after the IESG approves the document, the YANG module file will be posted after the RFC Editor notifies us that the document has been published.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2019-03-04
27 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2019-03-04
27 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2019-03-01
27 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell
2019-03-01
27 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell
2019-02-28
27 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2019-02-28
27 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2019-02-27
27 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley
2019-02-27
27 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley
2019-02-27
27 Roman Danyliw
The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-22.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document …
The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-22.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies the DOTS data channel, one of two protocols (the other being the DOTS signal channel – draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel) that enables the exchange of information necessary to mitigate a DDoS attack.  This data channel protocol allows the exchange of information that is not appropriate to send under attack conditions.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as a Proposed Standard.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest and implementations.

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in April 2017 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in August 2016.  This draft has evolved through design and implementation feedback to the current -22 version.

There have been three implementations of the draft, one open source and two proprietary from the following vendors:
** go-dots (NTT) -- https://github.com/nttdots/go-dots
** NCC Group
** Huawei

Older versions of the draft were used in interops at the Hackathons of IETF 100 and 101 to enable end-to-end testing for DOTS agents.  At the IETF 102 Hackathon, there was an inter-op specifically focused on testing between these three implementations per the -16 of the draft.  Identified issues were fixed in draft versions -17 and -18.  The full results of the inter-op can be seen here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-dots-ietf-102-hackathon-interop-report-00.  Final issues were identified and resolved at the IETF 103 Interop, https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-dots-interop-report-from-ietf-103-hackathon-00.

The WG convened a WGLC on -18 of the draft from August 10 – 27, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02547.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -19, -20 and -21.

Feedback during the shepherding preparation produced -22 to address editorial issues.

This data channel protocol has a companion signal channel protocol (draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel) in DOTS which has also been submitted for publications.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and from implementers.  There was early coordination with the NETCONF WG on ACL YANG modules.  The WG believes it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Mohammed Boucadair -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02699.html
** Tirumal Reddy -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02702.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02700.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02701.html
** Prashanth Patil – https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02704.html
** Andrew Mortensen – https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02705.html
** Nik Teague -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02703.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reports the following issues which do not require action:

(** error **)  “The abstract seems to contain references”  The abstract does contain these references but only in guidance to the RFC Editor who will remove them prior to publication.

(== warnings ==) The four “xx has weird spacing” instances are pointing to an figure depicting a YANG model and can be ignored

(-- comments --) The four “Looks like a reference” instances are pointing to an example and can be ignored.

The yang modules in the draft were validated as having no errors using www.yangvalidator.com (that was configured as follows -- validator version: 0.3.1, xym version: 0.4, pyang version: 1.7.3 confdc version: confd-6.5.3 , yanglint version: yanglint 0.14.69)

There are two actions for IANA:

(1) Registration of a new URI, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-data-channel, in the “IETF XML Registry"; and
(2) Registration of new YANG module, ietf-dots-data-channel, in the “YANG Module Names” registry

No early expert review has been requested for the above IANA allocation.


2019-02-27
27 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2019-02-27
27 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-03-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: rdd@cert.org, dots@ietf.org, Roman Danyliw , dots-chairs@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-03-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: rdd@cert.org, dots@ietf.org, Roman Danyliw , dots-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dots-data-channel@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel Specification) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the DDoS Open Threat Signaling WG (dots)
to consider the following document: - 'Distributed Denial-of-Service Open
Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data
  Channel Specification'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-03-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The document specifies a Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
  Signaling (DOTS) data channel used for bulk exchange of data that
  cannot easily or appropriately communicated through the DOTS signal
  channel under attack conditions.

  This is a companion document to the DOTS signal channel
  specification.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

  Please update these statements within the document with the RFC
  number to be assigned to this document:

  o  "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;"

  o  "RFC XXXX: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
      (DOTS) Data Channel Specification";

  o  reference: RFC XXXX

  Please update the "revision" date of the YANG module.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-data-channel/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-data-channel/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2019-02-27
27 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2019-02-27
27 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2019-02-26
27 Benjamin Kaduk Last call was requested
2019-02-26
27 Benjamin Kaduk Last call announcement was generated
2019-02-26
27 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot approval text was generated
2019-02-26
27 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot writeup was generated
2019-02-26
27 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2019-02-22
27 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27.txt
2019-02-22
27 (System) New version approved
2019-02-22
27 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K
2019-02-22
27 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-02-18
26 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-26.txt
2019-02-18
26 (System) New version approved
2019-02-18
26 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrew Mortensen , Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Mohamed Boucadair , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Reddy K , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrew Mortensen , Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Mohamed Boucadair , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Reddy K , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2019-02-18
26 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-02-12
25 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2019-01-17
25 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-25.txt
2019-01-17
25 (System) New version approved
2019-01-17
25 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Reddy K , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Reddy K , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2019-01-17
25 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2019-01-17
25 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2019-01-17
25 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-12-21
24 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-24.txt
2018-12-21
24 (System) New version approved
2018-12-21
24 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-12-21
24 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-11-20
23 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-23.txt
2018-11-20
23 (System) New version approved
2018-11-20
23 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-11-20
23 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw
The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-22.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document …
The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-22.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies the DOTS data channel, one of two protocols (the other being the DOTS signal channel – draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel) that enables the exchange of information necessary to mitigate a DDoS attack.  This data channel protocol allows the exchange of information that is not appropriate to send under attack conditions.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as a Proposed Standard.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest and implementations.

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in April 2017 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in August 2016.  This draft has evolved through design and implementation feedback to the current -22 version.

There have been three implementations of the draft, one open source and two proprietary from the following vendors:
** go-dots (NTT) -- https://github.com/nttdots/go-dots
** NCC Group
** Huawei

Older versions of the draft were used in interops at the Hackathons of IETF 100 and 101 to enable end-to-end testing for DOTS agents.  At the IETF 102 Hackathon, there was an inter-op specifically focused on testing between these three implementations per the -16 of the draft.  Identified issues were fixed in draft versions -17 and -18.  The full results of the inter-op can be seen here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-dots-ietf-102-hackathon-interop-report-00

The WG convened a WGLC on -18 of the draft from August 10 – 27, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02547.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -19, -20 and -21.

Feedback during the shepherding preparation produced -22 to address editorial issues.

This data channel protocol has a companion signal channel protocol (draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel) in DOTS which has also been submitted for publications.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and from implementers.  There was early coordination with the NETCONF WG on ACL YANG modules.  The WG believes it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Mohammed Boucadair -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02699.html
** Tirumal Reddy -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02702.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02700.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02701.html
** Prashanth Patil – https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02704.html
** Andrew Mortensen – https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02705.html
** Nik Teague -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02703.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reports the following issues which do not require action:

(** error **)  “The abstract seems to contain references”  The abstract does contain these references but only in guidance to the RFC Editor who will remove them prior to publication.

(== warnings ==) The four “xx has weird spacing” instances are pointing to an figure depicting a YANG model and can be ignored

(-- comments --) The four “Looks like a reference” instances are pointing to an example and can be ignored.

The yang modules in the draft were validated as having no errors using www.yangvalidator.com (that was configured as follows -- validator version: 0.3.1, xym version: 0.4, pyang version: 1.7.3 confdc version: confd-6.5.3 , yanglint version: yanglint 0.14.69)

There are two actions for IANA:

(1) Registration of a new URI, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-data-channel, in the “IETF XML Registry"; and
(2) Registration of new YANG module, ietf-dots-data-channel, in the “YANG Module Names” registry

No early expert review has been requested for the above IANA allocation.


2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-10-01
22 Roman Danyliw Changed document writeup
2018-09-28
22 Roman Danyliw Notification list changed to Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
2018-09-28
22 Roman Danyliw Document shepherd changed to Roman Danyliw
2018-09-27
22 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-22.txt
2018-09-27
22 (System) New version approved
2018-09-27
22 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Reddy K , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-09-27
22 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-09-10
21 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-21.txt
2018-09-10
21 (System) New version approved
2018-09-10
21 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-09-10
21 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-09-09
20 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-20.txt
2018-09-09
20 (System) New version approved
2018-09-09
20 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-09-09
20 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2018-09-03
19 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-19.txt
2018-09-03
19 (System) New version approved
2018-09-03
19 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-09-03
19 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2018-07-27
18 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-18.txt
2018-07-27
18 (System) New version approved
2018-07-27
18 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-07-27
18 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-07-18
17 Roman Danyliw Added to session: IETF-102: dots  Thu-1550
2018-07-17
17 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-17.txt
2018-07-17
17 (System) New version approved
2018-07-17
17 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-07-17
17 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-05-18
16 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-16.txt
2018-05-18
16 (System) New version approved
2018-05-18
16 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-05-18
16 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-04-19
15 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-15.txt
2018-04-19
15 (System) New version approved
2018-04-19
15 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-04-19
15 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-03-29
14 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-14.txt
2018-03-29
14 (System) New version approved
2018-03-29
14 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-03-29
14 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-03-19
13 Roman Danyliw Added to session: IETF-101: dots  Tue-1550
2018-02-01
13 Roman Danyliw Added to session: interim-2018-dots-01
2018-01-30
13 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-13.txt
2018-01-30
13 (System) New version approved
2018-01-30
13 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-01-30
13 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2018-01-11
12 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-12.txt
2018-01-11
12 (System) New version approved
2018-01-11
12 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2018-01-11
12 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2017-12-18
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-11.txt
2017-12-18
11 (System) New version approved
2017-12-18
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-12-18
11 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2017-12-08
10 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-10.txt
2017-12-08
10 (System) New version approved
2017-12-08
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-12-08
10 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2017-11-29
09 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-09.txt
2017-11-29
09 (System) New version approved
2017-11-29
09 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-11-29
09 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2017-11-23
08 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-08.txt
2017-11-23
08 (System) New version approved
2017-11-23
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-11-23
08 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-11-12
07 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-07.txt
2017-11-12
07 (System) New version approved
2017-11-12
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-11-12
07 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-11-08
06 Roman Danyliw Added to session: IETF-100: dots  Tue-1330
2017-10-27
06 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-06.txt
2017-10-27
06 (System) New version approved
2017-10-27
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-10-27
06 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-10-12
05 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-05.txt
2017-10-12
05 (System) New version approved
2017-10-12
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-10-12
05 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-10-02
04 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-04.txt
2017-10-02
04 (System) New version approved
2017-10-02
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-10-02
04 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-09-29
03 Roman Danyliw Added to session: interim-2017-dots-03
2017-08-18
03 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-03.txt
2017-08-18
03 (System) New version approved
2017-08-18
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-08-18
03 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-07-13
02 Roman Danyliw Added to session: IETF-99: dots  Thu-1550
2017-06-22
02 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-02.txt
2017-06-22
02 (System) New version approved
2017-06-22
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-06-22
02 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-06-19
01 Benoît Claise This document now replaces draft-reddy-dots-data-channel instead of None
2017-06-06
01 Roman Danyliw Added to session: interim-2017-dots-02
2017-06-05
01 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-01.txt
2017-06-05
01 (System) New version approved
2017-06-05
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Andrew Mortensen , Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy , Prashanth Patil , Liang Xia
2017-06-05
01 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision
2017-04-19
00 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K New version available: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-00.txt
2017-04-19
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-04-18
00 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Set submitter to "Tirumaleswar Reddy ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: dots-chairs@ietf.org
2017-04-18
00 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Uploaded new revision