Do we have working implementations to validate the movement to a proposed standard? Does it work? > On Feb 27, 2019, at 06:33, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The IESG has received a request from the DDoS Open Threat Signaling WG (dots) > to consider the following document: - 'Distributed Denial-of-Service Open > Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data > Channel Specification' > <draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2019-03-13. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > The document specifies a Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat > Signaling (DOTS) data channel used for bulk exchange of data that > cannot easily or appropriately communicated through the DOTS signal > channel under attack conditions. > > This is a companion document to the DOTS signal channel > specification. > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) > > Please update these statements within the document with the RFC > number to be assigned to this document: > > o "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;" > > o "RFC XXXX: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling > (DOTS) Data Channel Specification"; > > o reference: RFC XXXX > > Please update the "revision" date of the YANG module. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-data-channel/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dots-data-channel/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
