(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 the Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) signal channel, a protocol for signaling the need
for protection against Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks
to a server capable of enabling network traffic mitigation on behalf
of the requesting client.
This document obsoletes RFC 8782.
Working Group Summary:
Shortly after RFC 8782 was published in May 2020 a problem with a YANG module
defined in it was discovered. The WG decided to publish a -bis document to
fix the problem. The -00 version of the draft was prepared fairly quickly (in
June 2020) and the document was adopted in August 2020 (with a good WG
support for adoption). The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed.
Document Quality:
This draft is a -bis document for RFC 8782, its main purpose is to fix YANG
module. In addition it provides more comprehensive description of error
handling and makes minor changes to DOTS CBOR Key Values allocation. This
document doesn't change the DOTS Signal Channel protocol itself, in
particular it doesn't change bits on the wire. DOTS Signal Channel protocol
was thoroughly discussed and reviewed. There are at least two interoperable
implementations of this protocol. The updated YANG module has been reviewed
by YANG Doctors, who confirmed that they don't have problems with it.
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.
This document doesn't change the DOTS Signal Channel protocol, defined in RFC
8782, which was thoroughly reviewed by TSV experts. The document updates YANG
module describing data structures, so that it is more in line with YANG
specification. The updated YANG module has been reviewed by YANG Doctors
twice - an Early Review and a Last Call Review. 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 and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR
related to this draft.
** Mohamed Boucadair --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/-lbAm-E02-OgUZSFYJn5CdU6L8M/ **
Jon Shallow --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/wP5kheyWwgXbEfISsjFWWV3DBGw/ **
Tirumaleswar Reddy --
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/9n4n_U1nOxyIIy6IVufK8DGDMyc/
(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 a few issues with this document, all of them are erroneous:
weird spacing (in YANG module tree structure), missing reference to [RFCXXXX]
(not a real reference), referencing TLS 1.2 (done on purpose) and downward
normative reference to RFC 7918 (described below).
(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?
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.
This document contains a normative reference to Informational RFC 7918.
The authors believe it's important to keep this reference because using RFC
7918 allows to deliver dots signal messages sooner and avoid extra delays
that will jeopardize the mitigation. Note that RFC 8782 contained this
downward normative reference too.
(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.
This document obsoletes RFC8782. This is indicated in the title page header,
listed in the Abstract and is discussed in the Introduction. The document
also contains summary of changes from RFC 8782.
(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 requests IANA to update a number of records previously created
by RFC 8782. Most update requests simply change references from "RFC8782" to
"RFCXXXX". IANA is also requested to update prefixes for the YANG modules in
the "YANG Module Names" subregistry within the "YANG Parameters" registry
from "signal" to "dots-signal" and from "iana-signal" to "iana-dots-signal".
The only more substantial request to IANA is to update the "DOTS Signal
Channel CBOR Key Values" from the "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel" IANA Registry, that was created by RFC 8782.
The request is to reserve a range of one-octet CBOR Key Values for
"comprehension-optional" keys. The registration policy for this range is IETF
Review.
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 or warnings.
(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 (2.4.0) and yanglint (1.6.7) tools; no
validation errors or warnings were found.