Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-06

[Ballot comment]
"NON_PROBING_WAIT:
is used to limit the potential wait needed calculated when using PROBING_RATE."

I think there is a grammar problem here, and I can't parse this definition.

[Ballot comment]
HI,

Thanks for this document.

Only have a single, nit level, comment: When I was reading the field descriptions before the YANG modules, I was wondering what the units were, e.g., for the Dec64 values.  I noted that the units are specified in the YANG module, but possibly highlighting them in the earlier descriptions would also be helpful.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-05}
CC @ekline

## Comments

* I guess this work can be concluded when it eventually reinvents TCP.  ;-)

[Ballot comment]
Section 7.  Recommend a pointer to explain the intent usage of the YANG module.

OLD
  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.

NEW

Consistent with Section 5 of [RFC9131], this YANG module is not intended to be used via NETCONF/RESTCONF for DOTS server management purposes.  It serves as an abstract representation in DOTS signal channel messages.  The "ietf-dots-robust-trans" module (Section 5) does not introduce any new vulnerabilities beyond those specified above.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-05
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Valery Smyslov for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus even if it lacks the justification of the intended status :-(

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Abstract

Should "in case of a DoS" be added to "should any of the blocks get lost in transmission" ?

### Review by CORE WG ?

The shepherd's write-up mentions draft-ietf-core-new-block, but was this I-D formally reviewed by the CORE WG? It is usual to forward the WGLC to related WG; was it done ?

### Section 1

s/(i.e., responses may get dropped)/(e.g., responses may get dropped)/ ?

### Section 3, NON ?

The acronym "NON" is often used as a prefix, it would help the reader to provide the expansion of "NON" in the text.

### Security considerations

YANG modules often use https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines to build the associated security considerations; is there any reason why this template was not used ?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-05

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Tim Evens for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/NJ_TPQmVJ7Ph620Xlka54ptz-f8).

## Comments

### IANA

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
o limit the potential wait needed calculated when using PROBING_RATE. NON_PAR
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
```
The double modal "needed calculated" is nonstandard (only accepted in certain
dialects). Consider "to be calculated".

#### Section 5, paragraph 11
```
limit the potential wait needed calculated when using probing-rate."; choic
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
The double modal "needed calculated" is nonstandard (only accepted in certain
dialects). Consider "to be calculated".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this spec. Also, thanks to Valery Smyslov for the carefully-
written shepherd writeup.

I have just one comment, and one question, about this in Section 3:

  max-payloads:  This attribute echoes the MAX_PAYLOADS parameter in
      [RFC9177].

      This is an optional attribute.  If the attribute is supplied in
      both 'idle-config' and 'mitigating-config', then it MUST convey
      the same value.  If the attribute is only provided as part of
      'idle-config' or 'mitigating-config', then the other (missing)
      definition MUST be updated to the same value.

I think what you're saying here is that if max-payloads is set for
either idle-config or mitigating-config, then that parameter shall be
deemed set for both configs, and to the same quantity. I found the
way of saying it above to be quite confusing, especially the "(missing)"
thing, since if it's optional it can hardly be said to be "missing" just
because it isn't present. 

I also wonder if you need to supply some answer to the question of
what should happen if the MUST is violated. E.g. one option might be
to say that if two different values are supplied, the larger of the
two shall be used for both.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

  Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 
Technical Summary:

  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.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of the document was published as individual draft in January 2021
  and was adopted as a working group document in August.
  The draft was discussed in the WG, however mot as much as I would prefer it would.
  This is probably because the document's topic is in between DOTS and COAPS realms.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are co-authors of DOTS signal channel protocol and
  draft-ietf-core-new-block, which defines new COAP options this document makes use of.
  The draft was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  There is at least one implementation of this document (along with draft-ietf-core-new-block)
  and at least one is under way.

Personnel:

  Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
  Paul Wouters (AD)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. 

  I have reviewed the document and found it ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and by external experts (YANG Doctors).

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

  The document augments DOTS signal channel YANG module with parameters that allow
  negotiation of using new COAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 CoAP Options.
  The document was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  I personally don't think that more reviews are needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

  ** Mohamed Boucadair -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/4KpGKTpJeKI89FPOWKcT84pZjB0/
  ** Jon Shallow -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/_XJZCv8O8dbHaSg9s9ZGBMa8_No/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The WG consensus is solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

  idnits reports few warnings: 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document, missing reference to [RFCXXXX] (not a real reference) and not using RFC 2119 keywords.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

  The document contains a YANG module; it was reviewed by YANG Doctors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

  The document has a normative reference to draft-ietf-core-new-block-14, which is currently in the RFC Editor queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. 

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). 

  This document registers six new parameters in the "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry.
  It also requests IANA to register an URI in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" and
  to register a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry within the "YANG Parameters" registry.

  Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new registries are defined by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The automated checks of YANG module done via datatracker showed no validation errors. pyang 2.5.2 shows warning "imported module "ietf-dots-signal-channel" not used",
  while in fact this module is used. Authors believe this is a bug in pyang and raised an issue: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/719.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The YANG module was checked with pyang (2.5.2) and yanglint (1.6.7) tools; no validation errors were found (but see (19)).

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-04. 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 three actions which we must complete.

First, in the DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values registry on the Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/dots/

six new registrations will be made from the 32768-49151 range of the registry as follows:

+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+
| Parameter Name        | CBOR                    | CBOR  | Change    | Specification |
|                        | Key                    | Major | Controller | Document(s)  |
|                        | Value                  | Type  |            |              |
+========================+=========================+=======+============+===============+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| [ TBD-at-registration ] |  5  |    IESG    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
|  max-payloads          |                        |      |            |              |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| [ TBD-at-registration ] |  5  |    IESG    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
|  non-max-retransmit    |                        |      |            |              |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| [ TBD-at-registration ] |  5  |    IESG    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
|  non-timeout          |                        |      |            |              |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| [ TBD-at-registration ] |  5  |    IESG    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
|  non-receive-timeout  |                        |      |            |              |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| [ TBD-at-registration ] |  5  |    IESG    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
|  non-probing-wait      |                        |      |            |              |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| [ TBD-at-registration ] |  5  |    IESG    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
|  non-partial-wait      |                        |      |            |              |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-------+------------+---------------+

IANA question: Would it be acceptable to list the IETF as the change controller for the DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values registrations instead of the IESG? There has been a preference for doing so, as described in the expired document at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations-00, but it hasn\u2019t been recorded in a permanent document yet.

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

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

a new namespace will be registered as follows:

ID: yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
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.

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

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

a new YANG module will be registered as follows:

Name: ietf-dots-robust-trans
File: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Maintained by IANA? N
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
Prefix: dots-robust
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 two actions are the only ones 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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dots-chairs@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, valery@smyslov.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission) 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) Signal
  Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-09-16. 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


  This document specifies new DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal
  channel configuration parameters that can be 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.

  Also, this document defines a YANG data model for representing these
  new DOTS signal channel configuration parameters.




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



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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

  Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 
Technical Summary:

  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.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of the document was published as individual draft in January 2021
  and was adopted as a working group document in August.
  The draft was discussed in the WG, however mot as much as I would prefer it would.
  This is probably because the document's topic is in between DOTS and COAPS realms.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are co-authors of DOTS signal channel protocol and
  draft-ietf-core-new-block, which defines new COAP options this document makes use of.
  The draft was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  There is at least one implementation of this document (along with draft-ietf-core-new-block)
  and at least one is under way.

Personnel:

  Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
  Benjamin Kaduk (AD)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. 

  I have reviewed the document and found it ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and by external experts (YANG Doctors).

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

  The document augments DOTS signal channel YANG module with parameters that allow
  negotiation of using new COAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 CoAP Options.
  The document was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  I personally don't think that more reviews are needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

  ** Mohamed Boucadair -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/4KpGKTpJeKI89FPOWKcT84pZjB0/
  ** Jon Shallow -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/_XJZCv8O8dbHaSg9s9ZGBMa8_No/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The WG consensus is solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

  idnits reports few warnings: 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document, missing reference to [RFCXXXX] (not a real reference) and not using RFC 2119 keywords.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

  The document contains a YANG module; it was reviewed by YANG Doctors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

  The document has a normative reference to draft-ietf-core-new-block-14, which is currently in the RFC Editor queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. 

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). 

  This document registers six new parameters in the "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry.
  It also requests IANA to register an URI in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" and
  to register a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry within the "YANG Parameters" registry.

  Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new registries are defined by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The automated checks of YANG module done via datatracker showed no validation errors. pyang 2.5.2 shows warning "imported module "ietf-dots-signal-channel" not used",
  while in fact this module is used. Authors believe this is a bug in pyang and raised an issue: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/719.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The YANG module was checked with pyang (2.5.2) and yanglint (1.6.7) tools; no validation errors were found (but see (19)).

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

  Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 
Technical Summary:

  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.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of the document was published as individual draft in January 2021
  and was adopted as a working group document in August.
  The draft was discussed in the WG, however mot as much as I would prefer it would.
  This is probably because the document's topic is in between DOTS and COAPS realms.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are co-authors of DOTS signal channel protocol and
  draft-ietf-core-new-block, which defines new COAP options this document makes use of.
  The draft was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  There is at least one implementation of this document (along with draft-ietf-core-new-block)
  and at least one is under way.

Personnel:

  Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
  Benjamin Kaduk (AD)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. 

  I have reviewed the document and found it ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and by external experts (YANG Doctors).

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

  The document augments DOTS signal channel YANG module with parameters that allow
  negotiation of using new COAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 CoAP Options.
  The document was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  I personally don't think that more reviews are needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

  ** Mohamed Boucadair -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/4KpGKTpJeKI89FPOWKcT84pZjB0/
  ** Jon Shallow -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/_XJZCv8O8dbHaSg9s9ZGBMa8_No/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The WG consensus is solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

  idnits reports few warnings: 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document, missing reference to [RFCXXXX] (not a real reference) and not using RFC 2119 keywords.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

  The document contains a YANG module; it was reviewed by YANG Doctors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

  The document has a normative reference to draft-ietf-core-new-block-14, which is currently in the RFC Editor queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. 

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). 

  This document registers six new parameters in the "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry.
  It also requests IANA to register an URI in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" and
  to register a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry within the "YANG Parameters" registry.

  Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new registries are defined by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The automated checks of YANG module done via datatracker showed no validation errors. pyang 2.5.2 shows warning "imported module "ietf-dots-signal-channel" not used",
  while in fact this module is used. Authors believe this is a bug in pyang and raised an issue: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/719.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The YANG module was checked with pyang (2.5.2) and yanglint (1.6.7) tools; no validation errors were found (but see (19)).

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

  Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 
Technical Summary:

  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.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of the document was published as individual draft in January 2021
  and was adopted as a working group document in August.
  The draft was discussed in the WG, however mot as much as I would prefer it would.
  This is possibly because the document's topic is in between DOTS and COAPS realms.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are co-authors of DOTS signal channel protocol and
  draft-ietf-core-new-block, which defines new COAP options this document makes use of.
  The draft was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  There is at least one implementation of this document (along with draft-ietf-core-new-block)
  and at least one is under way.

Personnel:

  Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
  Benjamin Kaduk (AD)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. 

  I have reviewed the document and found it ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  No. The document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and by external experts (YANG Doctors).

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. 

  The document augments DOTS signal channel YANG module with parameters that allow
  negotiation of using new COAP Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 CoAP Options.
  The document was reviewed by YANG Doctors and no issues were found.
  I personally don't think that more reviews are needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. 

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

  All authors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft.

  ** Mohamed Boucadair -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/4KpGKTpJeKI89FPOWKcT84pZjB0/
  ** Jon Shallow -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/_XJZCv8O8dbHaSg9s9ZGBMa8_No/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 

  No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The WG consensus is solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

  idnits reports few warnings: 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document, missing reference to [RFCXXXX] (not a real reference) and not using RFC 2119 keywords.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. 

  The document contains a YANG module; it was reviewed by YANG Doctors.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? 

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? 

  The document has a normative reference to draft-ietf-core-new-block-14, which is currently in the RFC Editor queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. 

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). 

  This document registers six new parameters in the "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry.
  It also requests IANA to register an URI in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" and
  to register a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry within the "YANG Parameters" registry.

  Requests to IANA are consistent with document's body.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. 

No new registries are defined by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

  The automated checks of YANG module done via datatracker showed no validation errors. pyang 2.5.2 shows warning "imported module "ietf-dots-signal-channel" not used",
  while in fact this module is used. Authors believe this is a bug in pyang and raised an issue: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/719.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The YANG module was checked with pyang (2.5.2) and yanglint (1.6.7) tools; no validation errors were found (but see (19)).