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

[[e-mail]]

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)
-->


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.
-->


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]).
-->


5) <!--[rfced] Should Section 4.1's title also use a colon?

Current:
Multihomed Residential Single CPE

Perhaps:
Multihomed Residential: Single CPE

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]. 

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.
-->


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). 
-->


8) <!--[rfced] Regarding this text:
- Please clarify what "it" refers to in "it MUST check".
  Does it refer to a client-domain DOTS gateway?
- In the first sentence, will "the latter" be clear to the reader? 
  Does it refer to DOTS clients?

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
   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.
-->


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].
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Regarding [TS.24008], the original noted "Release 16".
Do you want to reference a specific version? 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