Subject: [Dots] DOTS draft charter - update with transport evaluation added

From: "Teague, Nik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:14:57 +0000

Hi,

Please see below.

OLD:
The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol
requirements and other qualifying information as the WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to
address the stated goals of the WG.

NEW:
The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol
requirements, transport evaluation and other qualifying information as the
WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to
address the stated goals of the WG.

Do we believe this to be adequate or is more required?  Suggestions
welcome.

Thanks,

-Nik

-[Charter for Working Group]-

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) is to develop a standards
based approach for the realtime signaling of DDoS related telemetry and
threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS
attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation.

The elements may be described as:
* On-premise DDoS mitigation platforms
* Service provider DDoS mitigation platforms
* Other network elements and services with the ability to analyze and/or
influence network traffic

Elements may participate in DDoS detection, classification, traceback and
mitigation individually or within the context of a larger collaborative
system.

These elements may be communicating inter-domain or intra-domain over
links that may be congested by attack traffic resulting in hostile
conditions for connection oriented approaches and more generalized
signaling and telemetry solutions.  Robustness under these conditions is
paramount while ensuring appropriate regard for authentication,
authorization, privacy and data integrity.  Elements may be deployed as
part of a wider strategy incorporating multiple points of DDoS detection,
classification, traceback and mitigation, both on premise or service
provider based.  Should changing conditions necessitate altering the
specifics of mitigation actions and/or the topological scope of mitigation
coverage, timely and effective signaling of telemetry and current threat
status to all elements involved in the mitigation is essential.  Feedback
between participating elements is required for increased awareness
supporting effective decision making.

The WG will, where appropriate, reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms (for example, IPFIX and its associated templating
and extension mechanisms).  Any modification of or extension to existing
protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups
responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this
working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible
Area Directors.  The WG may coordinate on a situationally appropriate
basis with other working groups and initiatives which compliment the DOTS
effort e.g. M3AAWG, SACM, MILE, SUPA, I2NSF et. al.

The charter of the working group is to produce one or more standards track
specifications to provide for this open signaling in the DDoS problem
space.  While the resulting standards should be designed so they apply to
network security applications beyond the DDoS problem space, this working
group will focus on signaling and coordination mechanisms directly related
to DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback and mitigation,
incorporating the general priniciples articulated in RFC5218
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5218>.  Focusing the WG efforts on DDoS is
intended to meet the community's desire for a deployable solution in the
near term.  The specification(s) produced by the WG will include a
standard mechanism for authentication and authorization, data integrity,
and providing for privacy in operation, with privacy-friendly choices
being the default in all cases.

The WG will produce the following deliverables and milestones:

* Document or Documents describing the problem space, use cases, protocol
requirements, transport evaluation and other qualifying information as the
WG sees fit.
* Document or Documents specifying protocols and associated data models to
address the stated goals of the WG.

* Nov-2015: WG document for Requirements/Use Cases (informational)
* Mar-2016: WG document for Transport (proposed standard)
* Apr-2016: WG document for Data Model (proposed standard)

* Feb-2016: Requirements/Use Cases draft to IESG
* May-2016: Transport draft to IESG
* Jun-2016: Data Model draft to IESG

* Periodically re-examine milestones (3x month intervals)

---

From: "Roland Dobbins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:28:16 +0700

On 11 Jun 2015, at 21:14, Teague, Nik wrote:

> Do we believe this to be adequate or is more required?

This looks good to me.

-----------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>