Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry
draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-16

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  A couple of minor nits:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
(1) p 2, sec 1.  Introduction                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
  This document presents sample use                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  cases for DOTS Telemetry, which makes concrete overview and purpose                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  described in [RFC9244]: what components are deployed in the network,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  how they cooperate, and what information is exchanged to effectively                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  use attack-mitigation techniques.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
I found this sentence hard to parse.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
(2) p 5, sec 3.1.1.  Mitigating Attack Flow of Top-talker Preferentially                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
  The forwarding nodes send traffic statistics to the flow collectors,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  e.g., using IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) [RFC7011].  When DDoS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  attacks occur, the flow collectors identify the attack traffic and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
  send information about the top-talkers to the orchestrator using the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  "target-prefix" and "top-talkers" DOTS telemetry attributes.  The                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
  orchestrator then checks the available capacity of the DMSes by using                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
  a network management protocol, such as Simple Network Management                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3413] or YANG with Network Configuration Protocol                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
  (YANG/NETCONF) [RFC6020].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Please use RFC 7950 as the reference for YANG.  Please check other references.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-14

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Peter E. Yee for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jpVrKg9QCjWlcKWgprDRW0Q09lY).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
highly automated. To that aim, multi-vendor components involved in DDoS atta
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 3.1.5, paragraph 2
```
S mitigation service by reporting on-going and detailed DDoS countermeasure
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "ongoing"? (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 6
```
irroring to copy the traffic destined a IP address and to monitor the traffic
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Valery Smyslov for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* the justification of the intended status is missing.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Timing of the WG docs

Like Alvaro wrote, it would have been nicer for the reviewer to have this document published before RFC 9244 ;-)

### Section 3.1.1 report

`recently reported large DDoS attacks exceeded several Tbps` please provide an informative reference to this report.

### Section 3.1.1 top-talkers

I am a little puzzled how an attack coming out of *two* top-talkers (and thanks for using IPv6 examples :-) ) is a *distributed* DoS attack. Suggest to change the prefix to something broader (e.g., two /48) rather than a host /128 prefix.

### Section 3.1.1 figure 1 e.g.

Is the use of "E.g.," in figures common ? or useful ? in figure 1 ?

As a side note, I am hard time to understand the figure 1: they are overloaded and little explanations on the graphics are given.

### Section 3.1.5

The intro text is about DNS torture attack, but the DOTS example is about DNS amplification attack, which appears as different attacks to me.

### Section 3.3.1

To be honest, the value of this section about ML escapes me ;-) (notably why DOTS is helping here) but the example DOTS message would benefit of using 2001:db8::2/127 rather than the 2 /128 ;)

### Section 6

Like Murray, I also wonder why some reviews are labelled as IESG review ;-)

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

[Ballot comment]
Just a couple of minor points:

The shepherd writeup template asks why the chosen status was appropriate, but the writeup itself doesn't answer this question.  (It is fairly obvious, but it's still good to have the complete writeup.)

Section 6 refers to "the IESG review" conducted by people who are not on the IESG.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Phillip Hallam-Baker for the SECDIR review.

** Section 4.

Some use cases involve controllers, orchestrators, and programmable
  interfaces.  These interfaces can be misused by misbehaving nodes to
  further exacerbate DDoS attacks. 

This is good advice.  I recommend calling out that that these security considerations are for end-to-end systems for DoS mitigation.  These mechanics are outside the scope of DOTS protocols and standardization activity.

** Section 6.

  Thanks to Donald Eastlake, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Sean Turner, and
  Peter Yee for the IESG review

I’m sure these reviews appreciate the acknowledgement.  To clarify, these were the directorate reviewers, not the IESG.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: dots-chairs@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases@ietf.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, valery@smyslov.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the DDoS Open Threat Signaling WG (dots)
to consider the following document: - 'Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-09-20. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  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 in particular what
  components are deployed in the network, how they cooperate, and what
  information is exchanged to effectively use these techniques.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-use-cases/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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.

(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.