Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts per guidelines in RFC5706. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Overall Summary: This draft is a standard track proposing telemetry attributes for DOTS signal channel (RFC8782) that can be exchanged between DOTS client and server. The draft clarifies that these attributes are not mandatory. As these telemetry attributes are extensions of the existing DOTS signal channel and it already clarifies that they are not mandatory, this draft does not introduce any backward compatibility issues. The draft also proposes high level error handling mechanism for the telemetry attributes defined in this document. Overall this is a well written document. Some ambiguity observed that needs attention are listed below: --> The below reference seems to be wrong. RFC7252 is COAP and not CBOR. I think it should be RFC7049. "Telemetry messages exchanged between DOTS agents are serialized using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7252]" --> An early reference to RFC7950 may be useful in Section 4.5. --> tsid seems to be a terminology introduced in this draft. It will be good to add this in the terminology section. Same for tmid. --> Section 6.1.2 states that a PUT request with link capacity set to 0 to delete a link when the other link is active. What happens if a PUT request is sent with all the links set to a capacity of 0?. Will it be treated as error or as "DELETE"?. --> The DMS mentioned below can be expanded or included in the terminology section. I cant find it in RFC8287 as well. The 'total-attack-traffic' attribute (Figure 27) conveys the total attack traffic identified by the DOTS client domain's DMS (or DDoS --> I understand that Pre-or-Ongoing-Mitigation attribute can be signaled by DOTS client or Server. Can this be used to report an ongoing attack to the server?. If so, what should be the value set in the end-time field?. --> I am skipping the YANG module as I noticed that YANGDOCTOR review is already done. Few nits: s/If no target clause in included in the request/If no target clause is included in the request