Use Cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling
draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-25

[Ballot comment]
I support the publication of this document.  It is an important resource to motivate and explain the use of the DOTS protocol.  Nevertheless, I am recusing myself because as the former DOTS WG and the first shepherd of this document, I had input into the content, especially in early on and in the final stages to get this to WGLC.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

I found this document to be well written and easy to follow.

One minor nit:

3.3.  DDoS Orchestration

  Then the orchestrator can take
  further actions such as requesting forwarding nodes such as routers
  to filter the traffic.

Perhaps reword this sentence to avoid "such as" twice in the same sentence.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
I'll insert my usual whining here about six authors when our preferred limit is five.

And now, a few nits:

Section 2:

* "... may be composed by a cluster of hardware  ..." -- s/by a/of a/ ?

OLD:
      Each service subscription
      usually involve Service Level Agreement (SLA) that have to be met.
NEW:
      Each service subscription
      usually involves one or more Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that have to be met.
NEW 2:
      Each service subscription
      usually involves a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that has to be met.

Section 3.1:

* "... considers two kind of DDoS Mitigation ..." -- s/kind/kinds/

* "... decreased to the certain level ..." -- s/to the/to a/ ?

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-21, 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-06-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases@ietf.org, dots-chairs@ietf.org, valery@smyslov.net, kaduk@mit.edu, dots@ietf.org, Valery Smyslov
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use cases for DDoS Open Threat Signaling) 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'
  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 2020-06-11. 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


  The DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) effort is intended to provide
  protocols to facilitate interoperability across disparate DDoS
  mitigation solutions.  This document presents sample use cases which
  describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as
  well as DOTS messaging exchanges.  These use cases are meant to
  identify the interacting DOTS components, how they collaborate, and
  what are the typical information to be exchanged.




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



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

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Roland Dobbins , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Kaname Nishizuka , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Liang Xia , Nik Teague

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw (write-up later updated by Valery Smyslov)
The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document  (the thread discussing this decision can be found here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/l0phQdpmSc4j6XhfxUyx-lrrDzk)
It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16. A second WGLC was declared for the -19 of the draft on 6 August 2019 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/6wYpLMiCMkYQ34QgbCYLdItuyWY). The reason for the second WGLC was an addition of one more use case. The WGLC ended on 15 August 2019 with solid consensus from WG and with some clarifications suggested, that resulted in -20 version.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
The following authors confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html
** Nik Teague -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Q-v64QuAGMbfhacTAnyKTuS83Zs
** Robert Moskowitz -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/c72MT1YhwJ0nmSaK1uZWHpXqTQk

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw (write-up later updated by Valery Smyslov)
The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document  (the thread discussing this decision can be found here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/l0phQdpmSc4j6XhfxUyx-lrrDzk)
It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16. A second WGLC was declared for the -19 of the draft on 6 August 2019 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/6wYpLMiCMkYQ34QgbCYLdItuyWY). The reason for the second WGLC was an addition of one more use case. The WGLC ended on 15 August 2019 with solid consensus from WG and with some clarifications suggested, that resulted in -20 version.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
The following authors confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html
** Nik Teague -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Q-v64QuAGMbfhacTAnyKTuS83Zs
** Robert Moskowitz -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/c72MT1YhwJ0nmSaK1uZWHpXqTQk

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , Nik Teague , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , Nik Teague , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw (write-up later updated by Valery Smyslov)
The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document  (the thread discussing this decision can be found here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/l0phQdpmSc4j6XhfxUyx-lrrDzk)
It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
The following authors confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html
** Nik Teague -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Q-v64QuAGMbfhacTAnyKTuS83Zs
** Robert Moskowitz -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/c72MT1YhwJ0nmSaK1uZWHpXqTQk

One author (Fouant) did not respond to this conformance check on:
** 02/04/2019, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AuLE3LPwV8ir4tjTLlYmy0zGCSk
** 01/09/2019, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02871.html
** 10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw (write-up later updated by Valery Smyslov)
The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document  (the thread discussing this decision can be found here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/l0phQdpmSc4j6XhfxUyx-lrrDzk)
It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
The following authors confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html
** Nik Teague -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/Q-v64QuAGMbfhacTAnyKTuS83Zs

The two authors (Fouant, Moskowitz) did not respond to this conformance check on:
** 02/04/2019, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AuLE3LPwV8ir4tjTLlYmy0zGCSk
** 01/09/2019, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02871.html
** 10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
The following authors confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html

The three authors (Fouant, Moskowitz, Teague) did not respond to this conformance check on:
** 02/04/2019, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AuLE3LPwV8ir4tjTLlYmy0zGCSk
** 01/09/2019, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02871.html
** 10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

(Write-up up-to-date as of 01/09/2019.
Awaiting IPR check per shepherd review:
02/04/2019, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AuLE3LPwV8ir4tjTLlYmy0zGCSk
01/09/2019, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02871.html
10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html
)

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Stefan Fouant --
** Robert Moskowitz --
** Nik Teague --
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

(Write-up up-to-date as of 01/09/2019.
Awaiting IPR check per shepherd review:
02/04/2019, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/_bSL7e_eK9Uws3IGohAUZT-G-o8
01/09/2019, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02871.html
10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html
)

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Stefan Fouant --
** Robert Moskowitz --
** Nik Teague --
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

(Write-up up-to-date as of 01/09/2019.
Awaiting IPR check per shepherd review:
01/09/2019, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02871.html
10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html
)

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Stefan Fouant --
** Robert Moskowitz --
** Nik Teague --
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

(Write-up up-to-date as of 01/09/2019.
Awaiting IPR check per shepherd review:

10/29/2018, https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02737.html

The following is the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-dots-use-cases.

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Roman Danyliw. The responsible Area Director is Benjamin Kaduk.

This document specifies current use cases in DDoS mitigation that the DOTS WG protocols intend to addresses.  These use cases describe the interactions expected between the DOTS components as well as DOTS messaging exchanges.

The WG has reached consensus to publish this protocol specification as an Informational document.  It has been subjected to substantial review from the community of interest.  Publication of this draft has been intentionally delayed to coincide with the publication of the signal and data channel specifications

2. Review and Consensus
=====================
The WG adopted this draft in October 2015 (-00) from an individual submission which was first published in April 2015.  This draft has evolved through substantial WG discussions to the current -16 version. Feedback on these framing use cases came from the both vendors and operators.

The draft grew and shrunk in the uses cases from -00 to -09; as the WG iterated over the degree of detail to provide in describing the interactions of the DOTS components and whether some use cases were subsets/supersets of each other.  At IETF 101 (around version -10), the WG chairs facilitated a discussion on how to reignite momentum on completing the draft given that the WG indicated continued interest.  Alternatives were discussed and a consensus call affirmed interest by the WG to adopt a revised, more simplified.  See the minutes from IETF 101 for details: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-dots-00.  The -11 drafted provided this update.

The WG convened a WGLC on -12 of the draft from June 13 – July 1, 2018 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02301.html).  Robust feedback occurred which resulted in the publication of -13, -14, -15, -16.

This draft has seen extensive review from the WG and there is a belief that it is ready for publication.

3. Intellectual Property
===================
Each author has confirmed conformance with BCPs 78 and 79 on the DOTS mailing list:

** Roland Dobbins -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02710.html
** Daniel Migault -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02707.html
** Stefan Fouant --
** Robert Moskowitz --
** Nik Teague --
** Liang Xia -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02708.html
** Kaname Nishizuka -- https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dots/current/msg02711.html

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points
============

Idnits reported no issues that require action.

The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate.

The draft has no IANA actions.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stefan Fouant , Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kaname Nishizuka , Nik Teague , Daniel Migault , Robert Moskowitz , Stephane Fouant , dots-chairs@ietf.org, Roland Dobbins , Liang Xia

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Nik Teague" , "Liang Xia" , "Robert Moskowitz" , "Stephane Fouant" , "Roland Dobbins" , dots-chairs@ietf.org, "Daniel Migault"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Nik Teague" , "Liang Xia" , "Robert Moskowitz" , "Stephane Fouant" , "Roland Dobbins" , dots-chairs@ietf.org, "Daniel Migault"