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