Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9284 <draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-13> for your review

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Tiru,

Thanks for the reply.  We’ve updated your status to “Approved” at the AUTH48 status page.

We will await word from each coauthor prior to moving the document forward in the publication process.

The AUTH48 status page is available here:
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9284

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf

> On Aug 16, 2022, at 6:26 AM, tirumal reddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Changes look good to me, I approve the publication. 
> 
> Best Regards,
> -Tiru
> 
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 at 04:01, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Tiru,
> 
> Thanks for the reply and guidance.  We have updated as you suggested.
> Please review our updates carefully and let us know if any further changes are 
> necessary or if the current version should be moved forward in the publication process.  
> We will await approval from each author listed at the AUTH48 status page (below).
> 
>   The files have been posted here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.xml
> 
>   The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive rfcdiff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
> 
>   The AUTH48 status page is available here:
>    http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9284
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mf
> 
> > On Aug 10, 2022, at 9:08 AM, tirumal reddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Please see inline.
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 05:19, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Authors,
> > 
> > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> > 
> > 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as follows. We
> > have removed the expansion of "DDoS" as it is included inside another
> > abbreviation, and it is considered well known on the abbreviations list
> > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt).
> > Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> > 
> > Original:
> > Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service
> >                       Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
> > 
> > Current:
> > Multihoming Deployment Considerations for DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
> > -->
> > 
> > Okay.
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > 
> > 
> > 3) <!--[rfced] Will it be clear to readers what is multihomed in this sentence?
> > 
> > Original:
> >    The goal is to provide some guidance for DOTS clients and
> >    client-domain DOTS gateways when multihomed.
> > 
> > Yes, the term "multihomed" is used in several RFCs. 
> >  
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "server(s) addresses" here;
> > the "(s)" seems unnecessary. Does either suggestion convey the 
> > intended meaning? 
> > 
> > Original:
> >    The DOTS client establishes one or more DOTS sessions by
> >    connecting to the provided DOTS server(s) addresses (e.g., by using
> >    [RFC8973]).
> > 
> > Option A:
> >    The DOTS client establishes one or more DOTS sessions by
> >    connecting to the provided DOTS server addresses (e.g., by using
> >    [RFC8973]).
> > 
> > Option B:
> >    The DOTS client establishes one or more DOTS sessions by 
> >    connecting to the provided addresses for the DOTS server or 
> >    servers (e.g., by using [RFC8973]).
> > -->
> > 
> > Option B looks good.
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 5) <!--[rfced] Should Section 4.1's title also use a colon?
> > 
> > Current:
> > Multihomed Residential Single CPE
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> > Multihomed Residential: Single CPE
> > 
> > Yes.
> >  
> > 
> > For comparison:
> > 4.2.  Multihomed Enterprise: Single CPE, Multiple Upstream ISPs
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 6) <!--[rfced] In the following text, please clarify whether the "/"
> > in "IP addresses/prefixes" means "and" or "or", and please review 
> > whether "the" or "a" may be used for "default gateway address" and 
> > "DOTS server's name".
> > 
> > Original:
> >    *  Each of these provisioning domains assigns IP addresses/prefixes
> >       to the CPE and provides additional configuration information such
> >       as a list of DNS servers, DNS suffixes associated with the
> >       network, default gateway address, and DOTS server's name
> >       [RFC8973]. 
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >    *  Each of these provisioning domains assigns IP addresses or prefixes
> >       to the CPE and provides additional configuration information such
> >       as a list of DNS servers, DNS suffixes associated with the
> >       network, the default gateway address, and the DOTS server's name
> >       [RFC8973].
> > 
> > Proposed text looks good.
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Throughout this document, please review the usage of "addresses/prefixes" 
> > (16 instances) as well as similar "address/prefix" (2 instances) and 
> > "prefixes/addresses" (1 instance) and let us know if any updates are needed. 
> > Perhaps "and", "or", or "and/or" is intended.
> > 
> > You can use "or". 
> >  
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 7) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence. It seems there's an
> > extraneous "from".
> > The "either ... or" phrase should contain two parallel items, e.g.,
> > A) either "the DNS servers learned" or "the DNS servers associated"  
> > B) either "learned from" or "associated with"
> > Please see below.
> > 
> > Original:
> >    The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by each
> >    provisioning domain using either the DNS servers learned from the
> >    respective provisioning domain or from the DNS servers associated
> >    with the interface(s) for which a DOTS server was explicitly
> >    configured (Section 4). 
> > 
> > Option A (removing "from"):
> >    The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by each
> >    provisioning domain using either the DNS servers learned from the
> >    respective provisioning domain or the DNS servers associated
> >    with the interface(s) for which a DOTS server was explicitly
> >    configured (Section 4). 
> > 
> > Option B (avoiding repetition of "DNS servers"):
> >    The DOTS client MUST resolve the DOTS server's name provided by each
> >    provisioning domain using the DNS servers either learned from the
> >    respective provisioning domain or associated
> >    with the interface(s) for which a DOTS server was explicitly
> >    configured (Section 4).
> > 
> > Option B looks good. 
> >  
> > 
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 8) <!--[rfced] Regarding this text:
> > - Please clarify what "it" refers to in "it MUST check".
> >   Does it refer to a client-domain DOTS gateway?
> > 
> > Yes. 
> >  
> > - In the first sentence, will "the latter" be clear to the reader? 
> >   Does it refer to DOTS clients?
> > 
> > Yes. 
> >  
> > 
> > Original:
> >    When PA addresses/prefixes are used, but no filter rules are provided
> >    to DOTS clients, the latter MUST contact all client-domain DOTS
> >    gateways simultaneously to send a DOTS message.  Upon receipt of a
> >    request by a client-domain DOTS gateway, it MUST check whether the
> >    request is to be forwarded upstream (if the target IP prefix is
> >    managed by the upstream server) or rejected.
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >    When PA addresses/prefixes are used, but no filter rules are provided
> >    to DOTS clients, the clients MUST contact all client-domain DOTS
> > 
> > You may want to replace "the clients" with "the DOTS clients" or "it". 
> >  
> >    gateways simultaneously to send a DOTS message.  Upon receipt of this
> >    request, a client-domain DOTS gateway MUST check whether the
> >    request is to be forwarded upstream (if the target IP prefix is
> >    managed by the upstream server) or rejected.
> > -->
> > 
> > Good catch, the proposed text looks good. 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 9) <!--[rfced] FYI, RFC 8811, Section 4 is IANA Considerations, so we have
> > updated this to point to Section 5 (Security Considerations) instead.
> > 
> > Original:
> >    DOTS-related security considerations are discussed in Section 4 of
> >    [RFC8811].
> > 
> > Current:
> >    DOTS-related security considerations are discussed in Section 5 of
> >    [RFC8811].
> > -->
> > 
> > Thanks. 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 10) <!--[rfced] Regarding [TS.24008], the original noted "Release 16".
> > Do you want to reference a specific version?
> > 
> > No, I don't see the need to reference a specific version. 
> > 
> > Please change my affiliation to Nokia and remove the office address.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > -Tiru
> >  
> > If so, did you intend
> > 16.3.0 in December 2019 (as shown under "Versions" at the provided
> > URL) or a different version?
> > 
> > Original:
> >    [TS.24008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core                                  
> >               network protocols; Stage 3 (Release 16)", December 2019,
> >               <http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
> > 
> > Current:
> >    [TS.24008] 3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
> >               network protocols; Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.008 16.3.0,
> >               December 2019,
> >               <https://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > RFC Editor/st/ar
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 1, 2022, [e-mail] wrote:
> > 
> > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > 
> > Updated 2022/08/01
> > 
> > RFC Author(s):
> > --------------
> > 
> > Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> > 
> > Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
> > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
> > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
> > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> > 
> > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
> > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
> > your approval.
> > 
> > Planning your review 
> > ---------------------
> > 
> > Please review the following aspects of your document:
> > 
> > *  RFC Editor questions
> > 
> >   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
> >   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
> >   follows:
> > 
> >   <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> > 
> >   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> > 
> > *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
> > 
> >   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
> >   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
> >   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> > 
> > *  Content 
> > 
> >   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
> >   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
> >   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> >   - contact information
> >   - references
> > 
> > *  Copyright notices and legends
> > 
> >   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> >   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
> >   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> > 
> > *  Semantic markup
> > 
> >   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
> >   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
> >   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
> >   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> > 
> > *  Formatted output
> > 
> >   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
> >   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
> >   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
> >   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> > 
> > 
> > Submitting changes
> > ------------------
> > 
> > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
> > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
> > include:
> > 
> >   *  your coauthors
> > 
> >   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> > 
> >   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
> >      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
> >      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> > 
> >   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
> >      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
> >      list:
> > 
> >     *  More info:
> >        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> > 
> >     *  The archive itself:
> >        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> > 
> >     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
> >        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
> >        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
> >        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
> >        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
> >        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
> > 
> > You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> > 
> > An update to the provided XML file
> > — OR —
> > An explicit list of changes in this format
> > 
> > Section # (or indicate Global)
> > 
> > OLD:
> > old text
> > 
> > NEW:
> > new text
> > 
> > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
> > list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> > 
> > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
> > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
> > and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
> > the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
> > 
> > 
> > Approving for publication
> > --------------------------
> > 
> > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> > that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> > 
> > 
> > Files 
> > -----
> > 
> > The files are available here:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.xml
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.txt
> > 
> > Diff file of the text:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-diff.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> > 
> > Diff of the XML: 
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284-xmldiff1.html
> > 
> > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
> > diff files of the XML.  
> > 
> > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.original.v2v3.xml 
> > 
> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> > only: 
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9284.form.xml
> > 
> > 
> > Tracking progress
> > -----------------
> > 
> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9284
> > 
> > Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> > 
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > 
> > RFC Editor
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9284 (draft-ietf-dots-multihoming-13)
> > 
> > Title            : Multi-homing Deployment Considerations for Distributed-Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
> > Author(s)        : M. Boucadair, T. Reddy.K, W. Pan
> > WG Chair(s)      : Valery Smyslov, Liang Xia
> > 
> > Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters
>