Skip to main content

Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry
draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-04-11
10 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? 

  Informational 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:

  Denial-of-service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry enriches the
  base DOTS protocols to assist the mitigator in using efficient DDoS
  attack mitigation techniques in a network.  This document presents
  sample use cases for DOTS Telemetry.  It discusses in particular what
  components are deployed in the network, how they cooperate, and what
  information is exchanged to effectively use these techniques.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of this document was published as an individual draft in March 2020.
  It was adopted by the DOTS WG in September 2020. Before the adoption the chairs had some concerns
  whether a separate informational document describing use cases for DOTS Telemetry
  is needed or it should be merged with the telemetry draft (based on the IESG directions to reduce a number of supplemental documents),
  but the WG consensus was that it's better to have a separate document describing use cases. The draft received relatively
  little attention in the WG until the WGLC was issued, when it was reviewed and discussed
  more thoroughly.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are long-time participants in the DOTS WG and some of them
  are developers of existing DOTS implementations. The draft was reviewed by authors
  of the DOTS Telemetry protocol. Some use cases described in the draft
  are reportedly implemented by some vendors.

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 reviews in the WG.

(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 describes possible use cases for the DOTS Telemetry protocol.
  The DOTS Telemetry protocol itself was extensively reviewed.
  I personally don't think that more reviews are needed for this document.

(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.

  ** Yuhei Hayashi -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/go57bdH7TGajZ7D4uw8qIZsiaj8/
  ** Meiling Chen -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AWYJ0lQAwhIVsqrc0pl6KFk1pLM/
  ** Li Su -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/2wLUOaoLGXOmLqmwnAo2AREgwuU/

(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 one false positive warning.

(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 no YANG module.

(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 normatively references draft-ietf-dots-telemetry, which is 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). 

  The document contains no requests to IANA.

(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.

  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.

2022-04-11
10 Valery Smyslov Responsible AD changed to Paul Wouters
2022-04-11
10 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-04-11
10 Valery Smyslov IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-04-11
10 Valery Smyslov IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-04-11
10 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? 

  Informational 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:

  Denial-of-service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry enriches the
  base DOTS protocols to assist the mitigator in using efficient DDoS
  attack mitigation techniques in a network.  This document presents
  sample use cases for DOTS Telemetry.  It discusses in particular what
  components are deployed in the network, how they cooperate, and what
  information is exchanged to effectively use these techniques.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of this document was published as an individual draft in March 2020.
  It was adopted by the DOTS WG in September 2020. Before the adoption the chairs had some concerns
  whether a separate informational document describing use cases for DOTS Telemetry
  is needed or it should be merged with the telemetry draft (based on the IESG directions to reduce a number of supplemental documents),
  but the WG consensus was that it's better to have a separate document describing use cases. The draft received relatively
  little attention in the WG until the WGLC was issued, when it was reviewed and discussed
  more thoroughly.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are long-time participants in the DOTS WG and some of them
  are developers of existing DOTS implementations. The draft was reviewed by authors
  of the DOTS Telemetry protocol. Some use cases described in the draft
  are reportedly implemented by some vendors.

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 reviews in the WG.

(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 describes possible use cases for the DOTS Telemetry protocol.
  The DOTS Telemetry protocol itself was extensively reviewed.
  I personally don't think that more reviews are needed for this document.

(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.

  ** Yuhei Hayashi -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/go57bdH7TGajZ7D4uw8qIZsiaj8/
  ** Meiling Chen -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AWYJ0lQAwhIVsqrc0pl6KFk1pLM/
  ** Li Su -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/2wLUOaoLGXOmLqmwnAo2AREgwuU/

(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 one false positive warning.

(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 no YANG module.

(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 normatively references draft-ietf-dots-telemetry, which is 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). 

  The document contains no requests to IANA.

(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.

  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.

2022-04-01
10 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-10.txt
2022-04-01
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuhei Hayashi)
2022-04-01
10 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2022-02-28
09 Valery Smyslov Notification list changed to valery@smyslov.net because the document shepherd was set
2022-02-28
09 Valery Smyslov Document shepherd changed to Valery Smyslov
2022-02-28
09 Valery Smyslov Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2022-02-28
09 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2022-02-22
09 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-09.txt
2022-02-22
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuhei Hayashi)
2022-02-22
09 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2022-02-17
08 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-08.txt
2022-02-17
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuhei Hayashi)
2022-02-17
08 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2022-02-14
07 chenmeiling New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-07.txt
2022-02-14
07 (System) New version approved
2022-02-14
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Li Su <suli@chinamobile.com>, Yuhei Hayashi <yuuhei.hayashi@gmail.com>, chenmeiling <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
2022-02-14
07 chenmeiling Uploaded new revision
2022-02-10
06 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-06.txt
2022-02-10
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuhei Hayashi)
2022-02-10
06 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2022-02-10
05 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-05.txt
2022-02-10
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuhei Hayashi)
2022-02-10
05 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2022-02-09
04 Valery Smyslov IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-01-05
04 chenmeiling New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-04.txt
2022-01-05
04 (System) New version approved
2022-01-05
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Li Su <suli@chinamobile.com>, Yuhei Hayashi <yuuhei.hayashi@gmail.com>, chenmeiling <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
2022-01-05
04 chenmeiling Uploaded new revision
2021-07-15
03 Valery Smyslov Added to session: IETF-111: dots  Thu-1330
2021-07-06
03 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-03.txt
2021-07-06
03 (System) New version approved
2021-07-06
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Li Su <suli@chinamobile.com>, Yuhei Hayashi <yuuhei.hayashi@gmail.com>, chenmeiling <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
2021-07-06
03 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2021-07-01
02 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-02.txt
2021-07-01
02 (System) New version approved
2021-07-01
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Li Su <suli@chinamobile.com>, Yuhei Hayashi <yuuhei.hayashi@gmail.com>, chenmeiling <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
2021-07-01
02 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2021-05-22
01 (System) Document has expired
2020-11-18
01 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-01.txt
2020-11-18
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Yuhei Hayashi)
2020-11-18
01 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision
2020-09-14
00 Valery Smyslov This document now replaces draft-hayashi-dots-telemetry-use-cases instead of None
2020-09-14
00 Yuhei Hayashi New version available: draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-00.txt
2020-09-14
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-09-14
00 Yuhei Hayashi Set submitter to "Yuhei Hayashi <yuuhei.hayashi@gmail.com>", replaces to draft-hayashi-dots-telemetry-use-cases and sent approval email to group chairs: dots-chairs@ietf.org
2020-09-14
00 Yuhei Hayashi Uploaded new revision