Shepherd writeup

(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 aims to enrich DOTS signal channel protocol with
   various telemetry attributes allowing optimal Distributed Denial-of-
   Service attack mitigation.  It specifies the normal traffic baseline
   and attack traffic telemetry attributes a DOTS client can convey to
   its DOTS server in the mitigation request, the mitigation status
   telemetry attributes a DOTS server can communicate to a DOTS client,
   and the mitigation efficacy telemetry attributes a DOTS client can
   communicate to a DOTS server.  The telemetry attributes can assist
   the mitigator to choose the DDoS mitigation techniques and perform
   optimal DDoS attack mitigation.

Working Group Summary:

  The first version of the document was published as individual draft in mid 2019.
  In December 2019 the draft was adopted as a working group document.
  The draft was widely discussed in DOTS WG during 2020, attracting
  most active WG members.

Document Quality:

  Document authors are also co-authors of core DOTS documents (signal channel, data channel etc.)
  The draft was reviewed by YANG Doctors (twice) and by Ops Directorate.
  There are at least two interoperable implementations of the draft,
  one of which participated in IETF 106 Hackathon.


  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 protocol with telemetry attributes,
  so that DOTS signal channel YANG module is extended to allow transferring various telemetry information.
  The document was thoroughly reviewed by YANG Doctors: two reviews were performed - an Early Review and a Last Call Review.
  In addition an Early Review has beed performed by Ops Directorate.
  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. 


(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 --
  ** Tirumaleswar Reddy --
  ** Ehud Doron --
  ** Meiling Chen --
  ** Jon Shallow --
  ** Li Su --
  ** Pan Wei --

(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.) 


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

  idnits reports a few warnings, all of them are erroneous: weird spacing (in YANG module tree structure) and missing reference to [RFCXXXX] (not a real reference).

(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 thoroughly reviewed by YANG Doctors.

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


(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? 


(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. 


(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. 


(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 a large number of DOTS telemetry attributes in the "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry.
  It also registers a new cause code in the "DOTS Signal Channel Conflict Cause Codes" registry.
  In addition the document requests IANA to register two new URIs in the "ns" subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" and
  to register two YANG modules 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 2.4.0 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: 

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 (2.4.0) and yanglint (1.6.7) tools; no validation errors were found (but see (19)).