Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures
draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-08-16
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-08-03
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-06-25
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-06-25
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
2020-06-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-06-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-06-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-06-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-06-23
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-06-23
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2020-06-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2020-06-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on ADs |
2020-06-18
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
2020-06-15
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on ADs from On Hold |
2020-05-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2020-05-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC |
2020-05-21
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress |
2020-05-14
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-05-14
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-05-14
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-05-14
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-05-14
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-05-14
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-05-14
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-05-14
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-05-14
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-05-13
|
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss; it's not quite how I would have done it, but the key point is clearly covered, so that's … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss; it's not quite how I would have done it, but the key point is clearly covered, so that's good enough for me. |
2020-05-13
|
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-05-12
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the issues I raised. |
2020-05-12
|
09 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-05-08
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-05-08
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-05-08
|
09 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-09.txt |
2020-05-08
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: John Scudder) |
2020-05-08
|
09 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-07
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] I have the same concerns than some of the other ADs so no need to restate them here. |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I agree with Magnus that the values being registered in Section 3 need a bit of explanation. |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Easy to read document and while looking straightforward, I believe that Ben Kaduk and Magnus have raised a valid DISCUSS to be addressed. … [Ballot comment] Easy to read document and while looking straightforward, I believe that Ben Kaduk and Magnus have raised a valid DISCUSS to be addressed. If section 3 content is exhaustive, then this would solve their DISCUSS probably. Finally, https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/capability-codes.xhtml seems to indicate that there are still many code points available for first come, first use. So, perhaps no need to carve out another FCFS code points block. Regards -éric |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] [corrected] I mistook the IETF review policy for the content of the IESG Approval. This is a discuss point, but I don't want … [Ballot discuss] [corrected] I mistook the IETF review policy for the content of the IESG Approval. This is a discuss point, but I don't want the document to go forward before this discussion has concluded. In section 3 the following statement is done: Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of all registrations, once made, is "IESG". The IESG has discussed this and are currently of the opinion that registrations done by IETF documents should be "owned" by IETF. We are in the process of establishing an IETF consensus on this. There is currently a draft on this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations/ Reasons for this are several, consistency to intended state, making it clear that it is the IETF that owns IETF specification based registry entries, not created management bodies, thirdly one can replace the IESG with soemthing else without having to update all these registries. Section 3. Looking at the table. I see no explanation in this document to these entries. Still you want to add them with this document as reference. Can you please add an explanation behind the values being registered in the below table? +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | Value | Description | Reference / | | | | Change | | | | Controller | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 128 | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 129 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | | | (deprecated), prestandard Routing | document) | | | Policy Distribution (deprecated) | | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 130 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | | | (deprecated) | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 131 | Prestandard Multisession (deprecated) | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 184 | Prestandard FQDN (deprecated) | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 185 | Prestandard OPERATIONAL message | (this | | | (deprecated) | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 255 | Reserved | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot discuss text updated for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss point, but I don't want the document to go forward before this discussion has concluded. In section 3 the … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss point, but I don't want the document to go forward before this discussion has concluded. In section 3 the following statement is done: Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of all registrations, once made, is "IESG". First of all, just because something is under IETF Review policy does not imply that change control of a registration entry is owned by IETF. It might be true that all current entries are established through IETF stream specifications, where it make sense that change control is owned by IETF. So I would recommend that you reformulate the note. Secondly, the IESG has discussed this and are currently of the opinion that registrations done by IETF documents should be "owned" by IETF. We are in the process of establishing an IETF consensus on this. There is currently a draft on this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations/ Reasons for this are several, consistency to intended state, making it clear that it is the IETF that owns IETF specification based registry entries, not created management bodies, thirdly one can replace the IESG with soemthing else without having to update all these registries. Section 3. Looking at the table. I see no explanation in this document to these entries. Still you want to add them with this document as reference. Can you please add an explanation behind the values being registered in the below table? +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | Value | Description | Reference / | | | | Change | | | | Controller | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 128 | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 129 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | | | (deprecated), prestandard Routing | document) | | | Policy Distribution (deprecated) | | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 130 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | | | (deprecated) | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 131 | Prestandard Multisession (deprecated) | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 184 | Prestandard FQDN (deprecated) | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 185 | Prestandard OPERATIONAL message | (this | | | (deprecated) | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ | 255 | Reserved | (this | | | | document) | +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ |
2020-05-06
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-05-05
|
08 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-05-05
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Other comments have already said that the document should discuss the implementation survey that was apparently done. I agree with that. Otherwise, just … [Ballot comment] Other comments have already said that the document should discuss the implementation survey that was apparently done. I agree with that. Otherwise, just one minor editorial nit: — Abstract — The word “respectively” doesn’t belong here, because there isn’t a prior list to relate the designations to (contrast this with the last sentence in the Introduction, where it is used correctly). Just remove the word. |
2020-05-05
|
08 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-05
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position. With the caveat that I don’t have a sense of existing implementations, restating Ben's concern, it seems … [Ballot comment] I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position. With the caveat that I don’t have a sense of existing implementations, restating Ben's concern, it seems like there should be some discussion of (or exclusion of) the possibility that someone relied on what was previously a private code point which may now be registered for others use with different semantics. |
2020-05-05
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-05-04
|
08 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] (Quite possibly a "discuss discuss"...) What would the behavior be if someone was shipping an implementation that used a point in the 128-255 … [Ballot discuss] (Quite possibly a "discuss discuss"...) What would the behavior be if someone was shipping an implementation that used a point in the 128-255 range intending for the "private use" semantics, a conflicting codepoint was assigned via FCFS, and then needed to use the feature with conflicting codepoint in that implementation? It seems likely that we should discuss the plausibility of such scenarios and what options are available to handle it. |
2020-05-04
|
08 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-05-04
|
08 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] This document is straight forward and easy to read and understand. I had one minor comment. [RFC5492] designates the range … [Ballot comment] This document is straight forward and easy to read and understand. I had one minor comment. [RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as "Reserved for Private Use". Subsequent experience has shown this to be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors. It might possibly be helpful to expand this paragraph slightly. Because what was once "Reserved for Private Use" is now being reclassified to something non private, I presume that there are no BGP implementations using these capability codes that could be broken by this reclassification. Hence, on the assumption that these codes are not in fact being used for private use, it might be helpful to state that in order to help justify why it is okay to make this change. |
2020-05-04
|
08 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-04-30
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot comment] In section 3, it would be nice to have a sentence about the motivation for the new registry entries. Should 255 be in … [Ballot comment] In section 3, it would be nice to have a sentence about the motivation for the new registry entries. Should 255 be in table 1 as well as table 2? |
2020-04-30
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-04-30
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-04-30
|
08 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08.txt |
2020-04-30
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-30
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Scudder |
2020-04-30
|
08 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net from Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-05-07 |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-04-30
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-04-30
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-04-27
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-04-27
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the Capability Codes registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/ the registration procedures for the registry will be changed from: Range Procedure Note 1-63 IETF Review 64-127 First Come First Served 128-255 Reserved for Private Use IANA does not assign to: Range Procedure Note 1-63 IETF Review 64-238 First Come First Served 239-254 Experimental The reference for the registry will be changed from [RFC5492] to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, also in the Capability Codes registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/ seven, new capability codes will be registered as follows: Value Description Reference -----+-----------------------------------------+------------- 128 Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ] 129 Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering [ RFC-to-be ] (deprecated), prestandard draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-04 (deprecated) 130 Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering [ RFC-to-be ] (deprecated) 131 Prestandard Multisession (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ] 184 Prestandard FQDN (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ] 185 OPERATIONAL message (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ] [draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00] 255 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-04-26
|
07 | Reese Enghardt | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-24
|
07 | Kyle Rose | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Kyle Rose. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-17
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kyle Rose |
2020-04-17
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kyle Rose |
2020-04-16
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Theresa Enghardt |
2020-04-16
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Theresa Enghardt |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Susan Hares , shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Susan Hares , shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to consider the following document: - 'Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures' 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-04-30. 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 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental Use" and "Reserved". The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2020-04-15
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-04-15
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-04-15
|
07 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-07.txt |
2020-04-15
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: John Scudder) |
2020-04-15
|
07 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-11
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-06 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OFQOEM3lBjZbhUtGhh5QUH5DJC4 |
2020-02-11
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2020-02-11
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-02-11
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> |
2019-10-15
|
06 | Susan Hares | Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (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? Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures. (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 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental" and "Reserved". Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy on this list. Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response. The call was extended to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY Document Quality Document is a change to registration procedures. Early IANA QA review will be done. Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) . Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana Early RTG-DIR review: Chris Hopps - ready (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. IANA review: [IANA #1151764] from the email We have reviewed the latest version of this document. Since part of the registry will be First Come First Served, we'll be adding a change controller column, per RFC 8126. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Sabrina 3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list at version -01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change at version-02: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk at version -04: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8 at version -05: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VKRKzX-mArttzQ9sQB2Td3m2HBA Resolved RTG-DIR in -05.txt (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255. A comparison of new and old procedures is below: Registration Registration Range RFC5492 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change ===== =========== =================================== 1-63 IETF Review IETF review 64-127 FCFS FCFS 127-238 Private use FCFS 239-254 Private use Experimental The reason for the change is specified in the introduction. The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1. Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a single number for further expansion. (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? None (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. John Scudder: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light. It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case. (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. (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. No Nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (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? No (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. yes - RFC5492. (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 8126). This document revises IANA procedures for: "Capability Codes" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters. This is an existing registry. (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. No Expert review in the registries. (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. No automated checks outside of NITs. |
2019-10-15
|
06 | Susan Hares | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-10-15
|
06 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-10-15
|
06 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-10-15
|
06 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-15
|
06 | Susan Hares | Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (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? Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures. (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 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental" and "Reserved". Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy on this list. Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response. The call was extended to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY Document Quality Document is a change to registration procedures. Early IANA QA review will be done. Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) . Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana Early RTG-DIR review: Chris Hopps - ready (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. IANA review: [IANA #1151764] from the email We have reviewed the latest version of this document. Since part of the registry will be First Come First Served, we'll be adding a change controller column, per RFC 8126. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Sabrina 3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list at version -01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change at version-02: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk at version -04: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8 at version -05: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VKRKzX-mArttzQ9sQB2Td3m2HBA Resolved RTG-DIR in -05.txt (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255. A comparison of new and old procedures is below: Registration Registration Range RFC5492 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change ===== =========== =================================== 1-63 IETF Review IETF review 64-127 FCFS FCFS 127-238 Private use FCFS 239-254 Private use Experimental The reason for the change is specified in the introduction. The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1. Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a single number for further expansion. (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? None (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. John Scudder: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light. It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case. (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. (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. No Nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (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? No (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. yes - RFC5492. (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 8126). This document revises IANA procedures for: "Capability Codes" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters. This is an existing registry. (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. No Expert review in the registries. (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. No automated checks outside of NITs. |
2019-10-15
|
06 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-06.txt |
2019-10-15
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: John Scudder) |
2019-10-15
|
06 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-14
|
05 | Susan Hares | Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (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? Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures. (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 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental" and "Reserved". Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy on this list. Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response. The call was extended to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY Document Quality Document is a change to registration procedures. Early IANA QA review will be done. Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) . Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana Early RTG-DIR review: Chris Hopps - ready (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. IANA review: [IANA #1151764] from the email We have reviewed the latest version of this document. Since part of the registry will be First Come First Served, we'll be adding a change controller column, per RFC 8126. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Sabrina 3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list at version -01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change at version-02: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk at version -04: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8 at version -05: [TBD] (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? [Check after Chris Hopp's message has been responded to] No. (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. IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255. A comparison of new and old procedures is below: Registration Registration Range RFC5492 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change ===== =========== =================================== 1-63 IETF Review IETF review 64-127 FCFS FCFS 127-238 Private use FCFS 239-254 Private use Experimental 255 Private use Reserved The reason for the change is specified in the introduction. The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1. Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a single number for further expansion. (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? None (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. John Scudder: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light. It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case. (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. (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. No Nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (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? No (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. yes - RFC5492. (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 8126). This document revises IANA procedures for: "Capability Codes" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters. This is an existing registry. (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. No Expert review in the registries. (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. No automated checks outside of NITs. |
2019-09-11
|
05 | Susan Hares | Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (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? Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures. (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 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental" and "Reserved". Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy on this list. Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response. The call was extended to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY Document Quality Document is a change to registration procedures. Early IANA QA review will be done. Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) . Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana Early RTG-DIR review: Chris Hopps - ready (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. 1) Nits - 2) Early QA Review: IANA 3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list at version -01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change at version-02: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk at version -04: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8 (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? [TBD - Awaiting IANA review] (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. IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255. A comparison of new and old procedures is below: Registration Registration Range RFC5492 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change ===== =========== =================================== 1-63 IETF Review IETF review 64-127 FCFS FCFS 127-238 Private use FCFS 239-254 Private use Experimental 255 Private use Reserved The reason for the change is specified in the introduction. The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1. Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a single number for further expansion. (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? None [May add additional input after IANA Review] (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. John Scudder: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light. It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case. (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. (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. No Nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (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? No (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. yes - RFC5492. (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 8126). This document revises IANA procedures for: "Capability Codes" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters. This is an existing registry. (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. No Expert review in the registries. (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. No automated checks outside of NITs. |
2019-07-25
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2019-06-11
|
05 | Christian Hopps | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christian Hopps. Sent review to list. |
2019-06-10
|
05 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Christian Hopps |
2019-06-10
|
05 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Christian Hopps |
2019-06-09
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-06-09
|
05 | Susan Hares | Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012 (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? Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures. (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 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental" and "Reserved". Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [TBD] Document Quality Document is a change to registration procedures. Early IANA QA review will be done. Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana (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. 1) Nits - 2) Early QA Review: IANA 3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list [TBd] (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? [TBD] (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. IANA Review is critical as we change procedures. (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? [TBD] (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. John Scudder: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? [TBD] (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.) [TBD] (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. No Nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (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? No (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. yes - RFC5492. (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 8126). This document revises IANA procedures for: "Capability Codes" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters. This is an existing registry. (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. No Expert review in the registries. (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. No automated checks outside of NITs. |
2019-06-09
|
05 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-06-07
|
05 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> |
2019-06-07
|
05 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2019-05-28
|
05 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt |
2019-05-28
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-28
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Scudder |
2019-05-28
|
05 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-23
|
04 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-04.txt |
2019-05-23
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-23
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Scudder |
2019-05-23
|
04 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-19
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-11-15
|
03 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-03.txt |
2018-11-15
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-15
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Scudder |
2018-11-15
|
03 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-13
|
02 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-02.txt |
2018-11-13
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-13
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Scudder |
2018-11-13
|
02 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-12
|
01 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01.txt |
2018-11-12
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-12
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Scudder |
2018-11-12
|
01 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-06
|
00 | John Scudder | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-11-06
|
00 | John Scudder | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-11-06
|
00 | John Scudder | This document now replaces draft-scudder-idr-capabilities-registry-change instead of None |
2018-11-06
|
00 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.txt |
2018-11-06
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-11-06
|
00 | John Scudder | Set submitter to "John Scudder ", replaces to draft-scudder-idr-capabilities-registry-change and sent approval email to group chairs: idr-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-11-06
|
00 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |