Use of BGP Large Communities
draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-07

[Ballot comment]
Introduction

  BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque
  information between Autonomous Systems (ASs).

Not only "between": BGP communities might also be used inside an AS, as you described in the "informational communities"

As mentioned by Jouni in his OPS-DIR review:
One minor nit I have relates to management & administration to the
large communities functions and description of their semantics. Are
those maintained somewhere? If there are existing repositories,
documentation, etc it would be nice to point out those. The document
now hints to NANOG and NLNOG..

[Ballot comment]
Overall the document was well written and easy to read. I did have one question though. It is not clear how the values for the Local data part 1 are matched up to the functions and communicated between the peer ASes? Is this going to stay purely a local matter between ASes or is there going to be a movement towards some sets of known functions (e.g. the BGP blackhole community RFC7999)?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage@ietf.org, grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, Christopher Morrow , christopher.morrow@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of BGP Large Communities) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of BGP Large Communities'
  as Informational RFC

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-04-21. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Examples and inspiration for operators to use BGP Large Communities.


This is a document about how to use a new BGP feature (large communities); there are BGP implementations today which support this feature.



The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

I think this is still in wglc so I will hold off on processing it until it closes. in this case this means delegating to warren.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
"Examples and inspiration for operators to use BGP Large Communities."

Working Group Summary

The working group discussion on this document was good, lots of good input given/taken and some pretty solid consensus was reached.

Document Quality

This is a document about how to use a new BGP feature (large communities), there are bgp implementations today which support this feature.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Shepherd - christopher.morrow@gmail.com (me)
RAD - warren@kumari.net

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

This document got review from working group members, there is no expert review required.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

no concerns

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

no particularly larger review is required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

no concerns

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

not necessary

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Solid consensus, good discussion.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)


no threats.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are no nits at this time.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

no mib/formal-review sorts of things required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?


yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

yes

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.


no

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).


There is no iana considerations section of note, no registries/etc are set to be updated/created/deleted.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

there are no structured data types to be checked.