Skip to main content

Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,,,
Subject: Document Action: 'Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry'
  (draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-15.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the DDoS Open Threat Signaling Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Paul Wouters and Roman Danyliw.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   DDoS 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 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.

  Document authors made a number of (small) fixes in response to the directorate
  reviews that improved the readability of the document.


  Valery Smyslov (shepherd)
  Paul Wouters (AD)

  The document contains no requests to IANA, so no IANA experts involved.

RFC Editor Note