Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9362.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Jon Shallow | ||
| Last updated | 2022-02-01 (Latest revision 2022-01-05) | ||
| Replaces | draft-bosh-dots-quick-blocks | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART IETF Last Call review
(of
-05)
by Tim Evens
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Document shepherd | Valery Smyslov | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9362 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | valery@smyslov.net |
draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-01
DOTS M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track J. Shallow
Expires: 9 July 2022 5 January 2022
Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-01
Abstract
This document specifies new DOTS signal channel configuration
parameters that are negotiated between DOTS peers to enable the use
of Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 CoAP Options. These options enable robust
and faster transmission rates for large amounts of data with less
packet interchanges as well as supporting faster recovery should any
of the blocks get lost in transmission.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 July 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. DOTS Attributes for Robust Block Transmission . . . . . . . . 4
4. YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. DOTS Robust Block Transmission YANG Module . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mappings Registry . . . . . . . 18
6.2. DOTS Robust Block Transmission YANG Module . . . . . . . 18
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], although
inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP. The
message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable
delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control. The block-
wise transfer [RFC7959] introduced the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options
to handle data records that cannot fit in a single IP packet, so not
having to rely on IP fragmentation. The block-wise transfer was
further updated by [RFC8323] for use over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets.
The CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options work well in environments where
there are no or minimal packet losses. These options operate
synchronously where each individual block has to be requested and can
only ask for (or send) the next block when the request for the
previous block has completed. Packet, and hence block transmission
rate, is controlled by Round Trip Times (RTTs).
There is a requirement for these blocks of data to be transmitted at
higher rates under network conditions where there may be asymmetrical
transient packet loss (i.e., responses may get dropped). An example
is when a network is subject to a Distributed Denial of Service
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
(DDoS) attack and there is a need for DDoS mitigation agents relying
upon CoAP to communicate with each other (e.g.,
[I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]). As a reminder, [RFC7959] recommends the
use of Confirmable (CON) responses to handle potential packet loss.
However, such a recommendation does not work with a flooded pipe DDoS
situation because the returning ACK packets may not get through.
The block-wise transfer specified in [RFC7959] covers the general
case, but falls short in situations where packet loss is highly
asymmetrical. The mechanism specified in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]
provides roughly similar features to the Block1/Block2 Options, but
provides additional properties that are tailored towards the intended
DOTS transmission. Concretely, [I-D.ietf-core-new-block] primarily
targets applications such as DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) that
can't use Confirmable (CON) responses to handle potential packet loss
and that support application-specific mechanisms to assess whether
the remote peer is able to handle the messages sent by a CoAP
endpoint (e.g., DOTS heartbeats in Section 4.7 of [RFC9132]).
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block] includes guards to prevent a CoAP agent
from overloading the network by adopting an aggressive sending rate.
These guards are followed in addition to the existing CoAP congestion
control as specified in Section 4.7 of [RFC7252] (mainly,
PROBING_RATE). Table 1 lists the additional CoAP attributes that are
used for the guards (Section 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]).
+---------------------+-------------------+
| Parameter Name | Default Value |
+=====================+===================+
| MAX_PAYLOADS | 10 |
| NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT | 4 |
| NON_TIMEOUT | 2 s |
| NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT | 4 s |
| NON_PROBING_WAIT | between 247-248 s |
| NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT | 247 s |
+---------------------+-------------------+
Table 1: Congestion Control Parameters
PROBING_RATE and other transmission parameters are negotiated between
DOTS peers as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC9132]. Nevertheless,
the attributes listed in Table 1 are not supported. This document
defines new DOTS signal channel attributes that are used to customize
the configuration of robust block transmission in a DOTS context.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Readers should be familiar with the terms and concepts defined in
[RFC7252] and [RFC8612].
The terms "payload" and "body" are defined in [RFC7959]. The term
"payload" is thus used for the content of a single CoAP message
(i.e., a single block being transferred), while the term "body" is
used for the entire resource representation that is being transferred
in a block-wise fashion.
The meaning of the symbols in YANG tree diagrams are defined in
[RFC8340] and [RFC8791].
3. DOTS Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
Section 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-new-block] defines the following
attributes that are used for congestion control purposes:
MAX_PAYLOADS: is the maximum number of payloads that can be
transmitted at any one time.
NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT: is the maximum number of times a request for the
retransmission of missings payloads can occur without a response
from the remote peer. By default, NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT has the same
value as MAX_RETRANSMIT (Section 4.8 of [RFC7252]).
NON_TIMEOUT: is the maximum period of delay between sending sets of
MAX_PAYLOADS payloads for the same body. NON_TIMEOUT has the same
value as ACK_TIMEOUT (Section 4.8 of [RFC7252]).
NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT: is the maximum time to wait for a missing
payload before requesting retransmission. By default,
NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT has a value of twice NON_TIMEOUT.
NON_PROBING_WAIT: is used to limit the potential wait needed
calculated when using PROBING_WAIT. By default, NON_PROBING_WAIT
has the same value as EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of
[RFC7252]).
NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT: is used for expiring partially received bodies.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
By default, NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT has the same value as
EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).
These attributes are used together with PROBING_RATE parameter which
in CoAP indicates the average data rate that must not be exceeded by
a CoAP endpoint in sending to a peer endpoint that does not respond.
The single body of blocks will be subjected to PROBING_RATE
(Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]), not the individual packets. If the wait
time between sending bodies that are not being responded to
calculated using on PROBING_RATE exceeds NON_PROBING_WAIT, then the
gap time is limited to NON_PROBING_WAIT.
This document augments the "ietf-dots-signal-channel" DOTS signal
YANG module defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC9132] with the following
additional attributes that can be negotiated between DOTS peers to
enable robust and faster transmission:
max-payloads: This attribute echoes the MAX_PAYLOADS parameter in
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block].
This is an optional attribute.
non-max-retransmit: This attribute echoes the NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is 'max-retransmit'. Note that DOTS uses a default
value of '3' instead of '4' used for the generic CoAP use
(Section 4.5.2 of [RFC9132]) for max-transmit.
This is an optional attribute.
non-timeout: This attribute echoes the NON_TIMEOUT parameter in
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this attribute is
'ack-timeout'.
This is an optional attribute.
non-receive-timeout: This attribute echoes the NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is twice 'non-timeout'.
This is an optional attribute.
non-probing-wait: This attribute echoes the NON_PROBING_WAIT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is 247s.
This is an optional attribute.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
non-partial-timeout: This attribute echoes the NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is 274s.
This is an optional attribute.
The tree structure of the "ietf-dots-robust-trans" module (Section 5)
is shown in Figure 1.
module: ietf-dots-robust-trans
augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
/dots-signal:signal-config
/dots-signal:mitigating-config:
+-- max-payloads
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-max-retransmit
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-timeout
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-receive-timeout
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-probing-wait
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-partial-wait:
+-- (direction)?
| +--:(server-to-client-only)
| +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
| +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
/dots-signal:signal-config/dots-signal:idle-config:
+-- max-payloads
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-max-retransmit
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-timeout
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-receive-timeout
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-probing-wait
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-partial-wait:
+-- (direction)?
| +--:(server-to-client-only)
| +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
Figure 1: DOTS Fast Block Transmission Tree Structure
These attributes are mapped to CBOR types as specified in Section 4
and Section 6 of [RFC9132].
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
DOTS clients follow the procedure specified in Section 4.5 of
[RFC9132] to negotiate, configure, and retrieve the DOTS signal
channel session behavior (including Q-Block parameters) with DOTS
peers. As specified in Section 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-new-block],
negotiated 'non-probing-wait' and 'non-partial-timeout' values are
used without applying any jitter.
An example of PUT message to configure Q-Block parameters is depicted
in Figure 2. In this example, the 'max-payloads' attribute is set to
'15' when no mitigation is active, while it is set to '10' when a
mitigation is active. The same value is used for 'non-max-
retransmit', 'non-timeout', 'non-receive-timeout', 'non-probing-
wait', and "non-partial-wait" in both idle and mitigation times. The
meaning of other attributes is detailed in Section 4.5 of [RFC9132].
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "config"
Uri-Path: "sid=123"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:signal-config": {
"mitigating-config": {
"heartbeat-interval": {
"current-value": 30
},
"missing-hb-allowed": {
"current-value": 15
},
"probing-rate": {
"current-value": 15
},
"max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ack-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ack-random-factor": {
"current-value-decimal": "1.50"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:max-payloads": {
"current-value": 10
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-receive-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "4.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-probing-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-partial-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
}
},
"idle-config": {
"heartbeat-interval": {
"current-value": 0
},
"max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ack-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ack-random-factor": {
"current-value-decimal": "1.50"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:max-payloads": {
"current-value": 15
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-receive-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "4.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-probing-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-partial-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
}
}
}
}
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
Figure 2: Example of PUT to Convey the Configuration Parameters
The example uses JSON encoding of YANG-modeled data following the
mapping table in Section 4 and Section 6 of [RFC9132].
4. YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR
The YANG/JSON mapping parameters to CBOR are listed in Table 2.
* Note: Implementers must check that the mapping output provided by
their YANG-to-CBOR encoding schemes is aligned with the content of
Table 2.
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| Parameter Name | YANG | CBOR | CBOR Major | JSON |
| | Type | Key | Type & | Type |
| | | | Information | |
+======================+============+======+===============+========+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA1 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:max-payloads | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA2 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-max- | | | | |
| retransmit | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA3 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-timeout | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA4 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-receive- | | | | |
| timeout | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA5 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-probing- | | | | |
| wait | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA6 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-partial- | | | | |
| wait | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
Table 2: YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
5. DOTS Robust Block Transmission YANG Module
The "ietf-dots-robust-trans" module is not intended to be used via
NETCONF/RESTCONF; it serves only to provide abstract data structures.
This module uses the data structure extension defined in [RFC8791].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-dots-robust-trans@2022-01-04.yang"
module ietf-dots-robust-trans {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans";
prefix dots-robust;
import ietf-dots-signal-channel {
prefix dots-signal;
reference
"RFC 9132: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification";
}
import ietf-yang-structure-ext {
prefix sx;
reference
"RFC 8791: YANG Data Structure Extensions";
}
organization
"IETF DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dots/>
WG List: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
Author: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
Author: Jon Shallow
<mailto:ietf-supjps@jpshallow.com>";
description
"This module contains YANG definitions for the configuration
of parameters that can be negotiated between a DOTS client
and a DOTS server for robust block transmission.
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2022-01-04 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Configuration Attributes
for Robust Block Transmission";
}
grouping robust-transmission-attributes {
description
"A set of DOTS signal channel session configuration
that are negotiated between DOTS agents when
making use of Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options.";
container max-payloads {
description
"Indicates the maximum number of payloads that
can be transmitted at any one time.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a message sent
from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value {
type uint16;
description
"Maximum acceptable max-payloads value.";
}
leaf min-value {
type uint16;
description
"Minimum acceptable max-payloads value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value {
type uint16;
default "10";
description
"Current max-payloads value.";
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
reference
"RFC NNNN: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission, Section 7.2";
}
}
container non-max-retransmit {
description
"Indicates the maximum number of times a request
for the retransmission of missings payloads can
occur without a response from the remote peer.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a message sent
from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value {
type uint16;
description
"Maximum acceptable non-max-retransmit value.";
}
leaf min-value {
type uint16;
description
"Minimum acceptable non-max-retransmit value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value {
type uint16;
default "3";
description
"Current non-max-retransmit value.";
reference
"RFC NNNN: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission, Section 7.2";
}
}
container non-timeout {
description
"Indicates the maximum period of delay between
sending sets of MAX_PAYLOADS payloads for the same
body.";
choice direction {
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a message sent
from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Maximum ack-timeout value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum ack-timeout value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "2.00";
description
"Current ack-timeout value.";
reference
"RFC NNNN: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission, Section 7.2";
}
}
container non-receive-timeout {
description
"Indicates the time to wait for a missing payload
before requesting retransmission.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
description
"These data nodes appear only in a message sent
from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Maximum non-receive-timeout value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum non-receive-timeout value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "4.00";
description
"Current non-receive-timeout value.";
reference
"RFC NNNN: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission, Section 7.2";
}
}
container non-probing-wait {
description
"Is used to limit the potential wait needed calculated
when using probing-rate.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a message sent
from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Maximum non-probing-wait value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum non-probing-wait value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "247.00";
description
"Current non-probing-wait value.";
reference
"RFC NNNN: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission, Section 7.2";
}
}
container non-partial-wait {
description
"Is used for expiring partially received bodies.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a message sent
from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
"Maximum non-partial-wait value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum non-partial-wait value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "247.00";
description
"Current non-partial-wait value.";
reference
"RFC NNNN: Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission, Section 7.2";
}
}
}
sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
+ "/dots-signal:message-type"
+ "/dots-signal:signal-config"
+ "/dots-signal:mitigating-config" {
description
"Indicates DOTS configuration parameters to use for
robust transmission when a mitigation is active.";
uses robust-transmission-attributes;
}
sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
+ "/dots-signal:message-type"
+ "/dots-signal:signal-config"
+ "/dots-signal:idle-config" {
description
"Indicates DOTS configuration parameters to use for
robust transmission when no mitigation is active.";
uses robust-transmission-attributes;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mappings Registry
This specification registers the following parameters in the IANA
"DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry [Key-Map].
* Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace TBA1-TBA6 with the CBOR
keys that are assigned from the 32768-49151 range. Please update
Table 2 accordingly.
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| Parameter Name | CBOR | CBOR | Change | Specification |
| | Key | Major | Controller | Document(s) |
| | Value | Type | | |
+========================+=======+=======+============+===============+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA1 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| max-payloads | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA2 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-max-retransmit | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA3 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-timeout | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA4 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-receive-timeout | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA5 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-probing-wait | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA6 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-partial-wait | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
6.2. DOTS Robust Block Transmission YANG Module
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "ns"
subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in
the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG
Parameters" registry.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
Name: ietf-dots-robust-trans
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
Maintained by IANA: N
Prefix: dots-robust
Reference: RFC XXXX
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations for the DOTS signal channel protocol are
discussed in Section 11 of [RFC9132].
CoAP-specific security considerations are discussed in Section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block].
This document defines YANG data structures that are meant to be used
as an abstract representation in DOTS signal channel messages. As
such, the "ietf-dots-robust-trans" module (Section 5) does not
introduce any new vulnerabilities beyond those specified above.
8. Acknowledgements
TBC
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block]
Boucadair, M. and J. Shallow, "Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options Supporting
Robust Transmission", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-core-new-block-14, 26 May 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-new-
block-14.txt>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8323] Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.
[RFC8791] Bierman, A., Björklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Data
Structure Extensions", RFC 8791, DOI 10.17487/RFC8791,
June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8791>.
[RFC9132] Boucadair, M., Ed., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K,
"Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
(DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", RFC 9132,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9132, September 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9132>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]
Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., Doron, E., Chen, M., and J.
Shallow, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19, 4 January 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dots-
telemetry-19.txt>.
[Key-Map] IANA, "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/dots/dots.xhtml#dots-
signal-channel-cbor-key-values>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission January 2022
[RFC8612] Mortensen, A., Reddy, T., and R. Moskowitz, "DDoS Open
Threat Signaling (DOTS) Requirements", RFC 8612,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8612, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8612>.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
35000 Rennes
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Jon Shallow
United Kingdom
Email: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com
Boucadair & Shallow Expires 9 July 2022 [Page 21]