Skip to main content

Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-03-23
03 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Paul Wouters
2022-02-11
03 Valery Smyslov
(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? …
(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)).

2022-02-11
03 Valery Smyslov Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2022-02-11
03 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-02-11
03 Valery Smyslov IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-02-11
03 Valery Smyslov IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-02-11
03 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-03.txt
2022-02-11
03 (System) New version approved
2022-02-11
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
2022-02-11
03 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-02-11
02 Valery Smyslov
(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? …
(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)).

2022-02-11
02 Valery Smyslov
(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? …
(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)).

2022-02-07
02 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-02.txt
2022-02-07
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mohamed Boucadair)
2022-02-07
02 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2022-02-01
01 Valery Smyslov Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-02-01
01 Valery Smyslov Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-02-01
01 Valery Smyslov Notification list changed to valery@smyslov.net because the document shepherd was set
2022-02-01
01 Valery Smyslov Document shepherd changed to Valery Smyslov
2022-02-01
01 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2022-01-17
01 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-01-17
01 Michal Vaško Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Michal Vaško. Sent review to list.
2022-01-17
01 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Michal Vaško
2022-01-17
01 Mehmet Ersue Request for Early review by YANGDOCTORS is assigned to Michal Vaško
2022-01-17
01 Valery Smyslov Requested Early review by YANGDOCTORS
2022-01-05
01 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-01.txt
2022-01-05
01 (System) New version approved
2022-01-05
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
2022-01-05
01 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision
2021-08-23
00 Valery Smyslov Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks
2021-08-23
00 Valery Smyslov This document now replaces draft-bosh-dots-quick-blocks instead of None
2021-08-23
00 Mohamed Boucadair New version available: draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-00.txt
2021-08-23
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-08-23
00 Mohamed Boucadair Set submitter to "Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>", replaces to draft-bosh-dots-quick-blocks and sent approval email to group chairs: dots-chairs@ietf.org
2021-08-23
00 Mohamed Boucadair Uploaded new revision