(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 mechanisms to configure Distributed-Denial-of-Service
Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) clients with their DOTS servers.
The discovery procedure also covers the DOTS Signal Channel Call Home.
Working Group Summary:
The -00 version of the document was published as individual I-D in June 2017.
The call for adoption was issued in November 2018 and ended up in March 2019.
The WG support for adoption of this draft was steady with quite a lot of
suggestions how to improve the document. The draft was fairly well (for this
WG) discussed and has been reviewed by active WG members.
Document Quality:
Document authors are also co-authors of core DOTS documents (signal channel,
data channel etc.) I believe that they have good understanding of DOTS
architecture. There is at least one implementations of this specification.
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 WG. In addition, early
version of the draft was reviewed by Bernie Volz from DHC WG:
https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-dots-discovery/issues/1
(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 is concerned with using DHCP and DNS. I don't see any issues
with using them, but I think that additional reviews from DHCP and DNS
experts would be helpful.
(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 and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR
related to this draft. ** Mohamed Boucadair --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/H8mMCJRRoJLgL3cu1lXoWyKnTR8 **
Tirumaleswar Reddy --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/yBVC0Ehv0A4wDVQRiIHQzWRv1aU **
Prashanth Patil --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/8zBAGkTbOQ4eH2s1V_Xg4Iamo4k
(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.
No ID nits were found by idnits tool except for referencing old versions of
some active I-Ds, that can easily be fixed during publication.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
None are applicable.
(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?
No.
(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).
IANA actions are clearly described and are consistent with the body of the
document. 1) A new service name "dots-data" is added to the "Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number" registry (without port allocation). 2) Two
records in the "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number" registry are
updated: "dots-signal" and "dots-call-home". These records don't
exist yet, they will be allocated when draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel and
draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home are processed by IANA (these drafts
contain the corresponding requests). Note, that a situation may happen
when this draft is processed by IANA before
draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel, so the IANA should be instructed to handle
this correctly - either allocate "dots-call-home" service name instead of
updating the record or postpone processing this document until
draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel is processed. There is no such problem with
draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel since it's already in the RFC Editor queue.
2) Two new DHCPv6 Option Codes are allocated in the "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6): Option Codes" registry. 3) Two new
DHCPv4 Option Codes are allocated in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) and Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) Parameters: BOOTP Vendor Extensions and
DHCP Options" registry. 4) Two new Application Service Tags are allocated in
the "Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters: S-NAPTR Application Service
Tags" registry. 5) Three new Application Protocol Tags are allocated in the
"Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) Parameters: S-NAPTR Application Protocol
Tags" registry. Registration policies for all these allocations are met
(provided that the draft is published as a Standards Track RFC).
(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.
(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.
No automated checks are applicable.
(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 document contsins no YANG module.