Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-23

Request Review of draft-ietf-dots-use-cases
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 25)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-06-11
Requested 2020-05-28
Authors Roland Dobbins, Daniel Migault, Robert Moskowitz, Nik Teague, Liang Xia, Kaname Nishizuka
Draft last updated 2020-06-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -23 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn Davies
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dots-use-cases-23-genart-lc-davies-2020-06-10
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 25)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-06-10


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-dots-use-cases-23
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2020-06-10
IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Ready wih some minor nits.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
s1, para 1: Just a thought:  might be worth adding to the end of this para: "and increase the time for deployment in a situation where speed is often of the essence".

s1, last para: Suggest adding in reference to DOTS requirements doc which is referred to in s2:
   This document provides sample use cases that provided input for the
   design of the DOTS protocols [RFC8782][RFC8783]. 
   This document provides sample use cases that motivated the requirements 
   for the DOTS protocols [RFC8612] and provided input for the design of 
   those protocols [RFC8782][RFC8783]. 

s2: For more logical ordering, move the definition of DDos Mitigation Service Provider after definition of DDoS Mitigation Service.

s2, DDoS Mitigation Service: 
      Service subscriptions usually
      involve Service Level Agreement (SLA) that have to be met.
      Each service subscription usually
      involves a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that has to be met.

s3.1, para 1: The abbreviation ITP has already been defined so you shouldn't have a redefinition here.

s3.1, para 7: s/thought different/though different/

s3.1, 2nd set of bullets, that are below Fig 1: This woud be more elegant using (a), (b), etc as the bullet labels. 

s3.1: Comment (not being familiar with the DOTS proposals): The text indicates that the ITP mitigation effort is an all or nothing buisness.  Is this always the case or could the client request or the server provide a proportional response rather than an all or nothing response?

s3.2, last sentence of 2nd para after Fig 2: s/These exact/The exact/

s3.3, para 2: s/various information/various sets of information/
s3.3, para after Figure 4: s/monitor various network traffic/monitor various aspects of the network traffic/.

s3.3, 2nd para after Figure 4: s/it's/it is/

s3.3, last five paras: Calling out a web interface specifically is overly specific.  Suggest adding 'for example'in at least one case or changing it to 'user interface'.

s3.3, first para on page 11:
to infer the DDoS Mitigation to elaborate and coordinate.
to infer, elaborate and coordinate the appropriate DDoS Mitigation.

s3.3, 3rd and subsequent paras on page 11: The orchestrator appears to change from one DOTS server to a plurality at this point.  Please make it clear whether there is one or many.  If only one, then s/The orchestrator DOTS servers returns this information back/The orchestrator DOTS server returns this information/ and s/servers/server/ subsequently.

s3.3, last para s/like  requesting/such as requesting/

s7:  This is an informational document and, as such, cannot have normative  references.  Please combine all references into one refererences section.