Internet DRAFT - draft-bosh-dots-quick-blocks
draft-bosh-dots-quick-blocks
DOTS M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track J. Shallow
Expires: December 31, 2021 June 29, 2021
Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
Channel Configuration Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
draft-bosh-dots-quick-blocks-03
Abstract
This document specifies new DOTS signal channel configuration
parameters that are negotiated between DOTS peers to enable the use
of Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options. These options enable robust and
faster transmission rates for large amounts of data with less packet
interchanges as well as supporting faster recovery should any of the
blocks get lost in transmission.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DOTS Attributes for Robust Block Transmission . . . . . . . . 4
4. DOTS Fast Block Transmission YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Tree Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mappings Registry . . . . . . . 16
5.2. DOTS Signal Filtering Control YANG Module . . . . . . . . 16
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252], although
inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP. The
message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable
delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control. [RFC7959]
introduced the CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options to handle data records
that cannot fit in a single IP packet, so not having to rely on IP
fragmentation and was further updated by [RFC8323] for use over TCP,
TLS, and WebSockets.
The CoAP Block1 and Block2 Options work well in environments where
there are no or minimal packet losses. These options operate
synchronously where each individual block has to be requested and can
only ask for (or send) the next block when the request for the
previous block has completed. Packet, and hence block transmission
rate, is controlled by Round Trip Times (RTTs).
There is a requirement for these blocks of data to be transmitted at
higher rates under network conditions where there may be asymmetrical
transient packet loss (i.e., responses may get dropped). An example
is when a network is subject to a Distributed Denial of Service
(DDoS) attack and there is a need for DDoS mitigation agents relying
upon CoAP to communicate with each other (e.g.,
[I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]). As a reminder, [RFC7959] recommends the
use of Confirmable (CON) responses to handle potential packet loss.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
However, such a recommendation does not work with a flooded pipe DDoS
situation as the returning ACK packets may not get through.
The block-wise transfer specified in [RFC7959] covers the general
case, but falls short in situations where packet loss is highly
asymmetrical. The mechanism specified in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]
provides roughly similar features to the Block1/Block2 Options. It
provides additional properties that are tailored towards the intended
DOTS transmission. Concretely, [I-D.ietf-core-new-block] primarily
targets applications such as DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) that
can't use Confirmable (CON) responses to handle potential packet loss
and that support application-specific mechanisms to assess whether
the remote peer is able to handle the messages sent by a CoAP
endpoint (e.g., DOTS heartbeats in Section 4.7 of
[I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis]).
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block] includes guards to prevent a CoAP agent
from overloading the network by adopting an aggressive sending rate.
These guards are followed in addition to the existing CoAP congestion
control as specified in Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]. Table 1 additional
CoAP attributes that are used for the guards.
+---------------------+---------------+
| Parameter Name | Default Value |
+=====================+===============|
| MAX_PAYLOADS | 10 |
| NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT | 4 |
| NON_TIMEOUT | 2 s |
| NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT | 4 s |
| NON_PROBING_WAIT | 247 s |
| NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT | 247 s |
+---------------------+---------------+
Table 1: Congestion Control Parameters
PROBING_RATE and other transmission parameters are negotiated between
DOTS peers as discussed in Section 4.5.2 of
[I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis]. Nevertheless, the attributes listed in
Table 1 are not supported. This document defines new DOTS signal
channel attributes that are meant to customize the configuration of
robust block transmission in a DOTS context.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Readers should be familiar with the terms and concepts defined in
[RFC7252] and [RFC8612].
The terms "payload" and "body" are defined in [RFC7959]. The term
"payload" is thus used for the content of a single CoAP message
(i.e., a single block being transferred), while the term "body" is
used for the entire resource representation that is being transferred
in a block-wise fashion.
The meaning of the symbols in YANG tree diagrams are defined in
[RFC8340] and [RFC8791].
(D)TLS is used for statements that apply to both Transport Layer
Security (TLS) [RFC8446] and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
[RFC6347]. Specific terms are used for any statement that applies to
either protocol alone.
3. DOTS Attributes for Robust Block Transmission
Section 6.2 of [I-D.ietf-core-new-block] defines the following
attributes that are used for congestion control purposes:
MAX_PAYLOADS: is the maximum number of payloads that can be
transmitted at any one time.
NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT: is the maximum number of times a request for the
retransmission of missings payloads can occur without a response
from the remote peer. By default, NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT has the same
value as MAX_RETRANSMIT (Section 4.8 of [RFC7252]).
NON_TIMEOUT: is the maximum period of delay between sending sets of
MAX_PAYLOADS payloads for the same body. NON_TIMEOUT has the same
value as ACK_TIMEOUT (Section 4.8 of [RFC7252]).
NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT: is the maximum time to wait for a missing
payload before requesting retransmission. By default,
NON_RECEIVE_TIMEOUT has a value of twice NON_TIMEOUT.
NON_PROBING_WAIT: is used to limit the potential wait needed
calculated when using PROBING_WAIT. By default, NON_PROBING_WAIT
has the same value as EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of
[RFC7252]).
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT: is used for expiring partially received bodies.
By default, NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT has the same value as
EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).
These attributes are used together with PROBING_RATE parameter which
in CoAP indicates the average data rate that must not be exceeded by
a CoAP endpoint in sending to a peer endpoint that does not respond.
The single body of blocks will be subjected to PROBING_RATE
(Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]), not the individual packets. If the wait
time between sending bodies that are not being responded to
calculated using on PROBING_RATE exceeds NON_PROBING_WAIT, then the
gap time is limited to NON_PROBING_WAIT.
This document augments the "ietf-dots-signal-channel" (dots-signal)
DOTS signal YANG module defined in [I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis] with
these additional attributes that can be negotiated between DOTS peers
to enable robust and faster transmission:
max-payloads: This attribute echoes the MAX_PAYLOADS parameter in
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block].
This is an optional attribute.
For the sake of more flexible configuration, this document defines
also the following attributes:
non-max-retransmit: This attribute echoes the NON_MAX_RETRANSMIT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is 'max-retransmit'. Note that DOTS uses a default
value of '3' instead of '4' used for the generic CoAP use
(Section 4.5.2 of [I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis]) for max-transmit.
This is an optional attribute.
non-timeout: This attribute echoes the NON_TIMEOUT parameter in
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this attribute is
'ack-timeout'.
This is an optional attribute.
non-probing-wait: This attribute echoes the NON_PROBING_WAIT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is 247s.
This is an optional attribute.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
non-partial-timeout: This attribute echoes the NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT
parameter in [I-D.ietf-core-new-block]. The default value of this
attribute is 274s.
This is an optional attribute.
An example of PUT message to convey the configuration parameters for
the DOTS signal channel is depicted in Figure 1. In this example,
the 'max-payloads' is set to '15' when no mitigation is active, while
it is set to '10' when a mitigation is active. The same value is
used for both 'non-max-retransmit' and 'non-timeout' in idle and
mitigation times.
Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
Uri-Path: ".well-known"
Uri-Path: "dots"
Uri-Path: "config"
Uri-Path: "sid=123"
Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"
{
"ietf-dots-signal-channel:signal-config": {
"mitigating-config": {
"heartbeat-interval": {
"current-value": 30
},
"missing-hb-allowed": {
"current-value": 15
},
"probing-rate": {
"current-value": 15
},
"max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ack-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ack-random-factor": {
"current-value-decimal": "1.50"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:max-payloads": {
"current-value": 10
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-timeout": {
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-probing-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-partial-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
}
},
"idle-config": {
"heartbeat-interval": {
"current-value": 0
},
"max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ack-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ack-random-factor": {
"current-value-decimal": "1.50"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:max-payloads": {
"current-value": 15
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-max-retransmit": {
"current-value": 3
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-timeout": {
"current-value-decimal": "2.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-probing-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
},
"ietf-dots-robust-trans:non-partial-wait": {
"current-value-decimal": "247.00"
}
}
}
}
Figure 1: Example of PUT to Convey the Configuration Parameters
4. DOTS Fast Block Transmission YANG Module
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
4.1. Tree Structure
This document defines the YANG module "ietf-dots-robust-trans"
(Section 4), which has the following tree structure:
module: ietf-dots-robust-trans
augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
/dots-signal:signal-config
/dots-signal:mitigating-config:
+-- max-payloads
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-max-retransmit
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-timeout
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-probing-wait
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-partial-wait:
+-- (direction)?
| +--:(server-to-client-only)
| +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
/dots-signal:signal-config/dots-signal:idle-config:
+-- max-payloads
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-max-retransmit
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value? uint16
| | +-- min-value? uint16
| +-- current-value? uint16
+-- non-timeout
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-probing-wait
| +-- (direction)?
| | +--:(server-to-client-only)
| | +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| | +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- non-partial-wait:
+-- (direction)?
| +--:(server-to-client-only)
| +-- max-value-decimal? decimal64
| +-- min-value-decimal? decimal64
+-- current-value-decimal? decimal64
4.2. YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR
The YANG/JSON mapping parameters to CBOR are listed in Table 2.
o Note: Implementers must check that the mapping output provided by
their YANG-to-CBOR encoding schemes is aligned with the content of
Table 2.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| Parameter Name | YANG | CBOR | CBOR Major | JSON |
| | Type | Key | Type & | Type |
| | | | Information | |
+======================+============+======+===============+========+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA1 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:max-payloads | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA2 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-max- | | | | |
| retransmit | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA3 | 5 map | Object |
| trans:non-timeout | | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA4 | 5 map | Object |
|trans:non-probing-wait| | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
| ietf-dots-robust- | container | TBA5 | 5 map | Object |
|trans:non-partial-wait| | | | |
+----------------------+------------+------+---------------+--------+
Table 2: YANG/JSON Mapping Parameters to CBOR
4.3. YANG Module
This module uses the data structure extension defined in [RFC8791].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-dots-robust-trans@2020-05-04.yang"
module ietf-dots-robust-trans {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans";
prefix dots-robust;
import ietf-dots-signal-channel {
prefix dots-signal;
reference
"RFC YYYY: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification";
}
import ietf-yang-structure-ext {
prefix sx;
reference
"RFC 8791: YANG Data Structure Extensions";
}
organization
"IETF DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Working Group";
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dots/>
WG List: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
Author: Mohamed Boucadair
<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
Author: Jon Shallow
<mailto:ietf-supjps@jpshallow.com>";
description
"This module contains YANG definitions for the configuration
of parameters that can be negotiated between a DOTS client
and a DOTS server for robust block transmission.
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2021-05-04 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Configuration Attributes
for Robust Block Transmission";
}
grouping robust-transmission-attributes {
description
"A set of DOTS signal channel session configuration
that are negotiated between DOTS agents when
making use of Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options.";
container max-payloads {
description
"Indicates the maximum number of payloads that
can be transmitted at any one time.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a mitigation message
sent from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value {
type uint16;
description
"Maximum acceptable max-payloads value.";
}
leaf min-value {
type uint16;
description
"Minimum acceptable max-payloads value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value {
type uint16;
default "10";
description
"Current max-payloads value.";
}
}
container non-max-retransmit {
description
"Indicates the the maximum number of times a
request for the retransmission of missings payloads
can occur without a response from the remote peer.";
leaf max-value {
type uint16;
config false;
description
"Maximum acceptable non-max-retransmit value.";
}
leaf min-value {
type uint16;
config false;
description
"Minimum acceptable non-max-retransmit value.";
}
leaf current-value {
type uint16;
default "3";
description
"Current non-max-retransmit value.";
}
}
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
container non-timeout {
description
"Indicates the maximum period of delay between
sending sets of MAX_PAYLOADS payloads for the same
body. By default, this parameter has the same value
as ACK_TIMEOUT.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a mitigation message
sent from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Maximum ack-timeout value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum ack-timeout value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "2";
description
"Current ack-timeout value.";
}
}
container non-probing-wait {
description
"Is used to limit the potential wait needed calculated
when using probing-rate.";
choice direction {
description
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a mitigation message
sent from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Maximum non-probing-wait value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum non-probing-wait value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "247";
description
"Current non-probing-wait value.";
}
}
container non-partial-wait {
description
"Is used for expiring partially received bodies.";
choice direction {
description
"Indicates the communication direction in which the
data nodes can be included.";
case server-to-client-only {
description
"These data nodes appear only in a mitigation message
sent from the server to the client.";
leaf max-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
}
units "seconds";
description
"Maximum non-partial-wait value.";
}
leaf min-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
description
"Minimum non-partial-wait value.";
}
}
}
leaf current-value-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
}
units "seconds";
default "247";
description
"Current non-partial-wait value.";
}
}
}
sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
+ "/dots-signal:message-type"
+ "/dots-signal:signal-config"
+ "/dots-signal:mitigating-config" {
description
"Indicates DOTS configuration parameters to use for
robust transmission when a mitigation is active.";
uses robust-transmission-attributes;
}
sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
+ "/dots-signal:message-type"
+ "/dots-signal:signal-config"
+ "/dots-signal:idle-config" {
description
"Indicates DOTS configuration parameters to use for
robust transmission when no mitigation is active.";
uses robust-transmission-attributes;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Mappings Registry
This specification registers the following parameters in the IANA
"DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" registry [Key-Map].
o Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace TBA1/TBA2/TBA3 with the
CBOR keys that are assigned from the 128-255 range. Please update
Table 2 accordingly.
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| Parameter Name | CBOR | CBOR | Change | Specification |
| | Key | Major | Controller | Document(s) |
| | Value | Type | | |
+========================+=======+=======+============+===============+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA1 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| max-payloads | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA2 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-max-retransmit | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA3 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-timeout | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA4 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-probing-wait | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
| ietf-dots-robust-trans:| TBA5 | 5 | IESG | [RFCXXXX] |
| non-partial-wait | | | | |
+------------------------+-------+-------+------------+---------------+
5.2. DOTS Signal Filtering Control YANG Module
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the "ns"
subregistry within the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in
the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG
Parameters" registry.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
Name: ietf-dots-robust-trans
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-robust-trans
Maintained by IANA: N
Prefix: dots-robust
Reference: RFC XXXX
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations for the DOTS signal channel protocol are
discussed in Section 11 of [I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis].
CoAP-specific security considerations are discussed in Section 11 of
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block].
This document defines YANG data structures that are meant to be used
as an abstract representation in DOTS signal channel messages. As
such, the "ietf-dots-robust-trans" module does not introduce any new
vulnerabilities beyond those specified above.
7. Acknowledgements
TBC
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-new-block]
Boucadair, M. and J. Shallow, "Constrained Application
Protocol (CoAP) Block-Wise Transfer Options for Faster
Transmission", draft-ietf-core-new-block-11 (work in
progress), April 2021.
[I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis]
Boucadair, M., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K, "Distributed
Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
Channel Specification", draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-06
(work in progress), March 2021.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8323] Bormann, C., Lemay, S., Tschofenig, H., Hartke, K.,
Silverajan, B., and B. Raymor, Ed., "CoAP (Constrained
Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets",
RFC 8323, DOI 10.17487/RFC8323, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8323>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8791] Bierman, A., Bjoerklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Data
Structure Extensions", RFC 8791, DOI 10.17487/RFC8791,
June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8791>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dots-telemetry]
Boucadair, M., Reddy, T., Doron, E., Chen, M., and J.
Shallow, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
Signaling (DOTS) Telemetry", draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-15
(work in progress), December 2020.
[Key-Map] IANA, "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/dots/dots.xhtml#dots-
signal-channel-cbor-key-values>.
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission June 2021
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8612] Mortensen, A., Reddy, T., and R. Moskowitz, "DDoS Open
Threat Signaling (DOTS) Requirements", RFC 8612,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8612, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8612>.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Jon Shallow
United Kingdom
Email: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com
Boucadair & Shallow Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 19]
