[Dots] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dots-architecture-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-architecture/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A well done document; thanks,  I have just a few minor comments:

— Section 1.1.1 —
You don’t *quite* have the BCP 14 boilerplate verbatim; please fix that.

— Section 1.3 —

   o  The signal and data channels are loosely coupled, and may not
      terminate on the same DOTS server.

I suggest “might not”, lest someone misread it to mean that they are not
permitted to (the strict English meaning of “may not”).  Look for “may not”
elsewhere also: I saw it in Section 2 as well, and one or two other places.

— Section 2 —

   Thus, DOTS neither specifies how an attack target decides it is under
   DDoS attack, nor does DOTS specify how a mitigator may actually
   mitigate such an attack.

The structure of this “neither...nor” doesn’t work.

NEW
   Thus, DOTS specifies neither how an attack target decides it is under
   DDoS attack, nor how a mitigator may actually mitigate such an attack.
END