Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security

Document Writeup for Working Group Documents
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?

Answer:

<>Start<>
Type of RFC requested: BCP
Why proper type: The procedures and technologies suggested are already very
widely use by various ISP’s, and are considered to be best practices by
successful BGP implementations Is it indicated in the title page: Yes <>end<>

(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: Relevant
content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the
document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the
abstract or introduction.

Answer:
<>start<>
   BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) is the protocol almost exclusively used
   in the Internet to exchange routing information between network
   domains.  Due to this central nature, it is important to understand
   the security measures that can and should be deployed to prevent
   accidental or intentional routing disturbances.

   This document describes measures to protect the BGP sessions itself
   (like TTL, TCP-AO, control plane filtering) and to better control the
   flow of routing information, using prefix filtering and
   automatization of prefix filters, max-prefix filtering, AS path
   filtering, route flap dampening and BGP community scrubbing.
<>end<>

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?

Answer:
<>start<>
Nothing particular to point out. The document and work contribution went smooth
without hick-ups. <>end<>

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number
of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any
reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g.,
one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on
what date was the request posted?

Answer:
<>start<>
This Is an operational document describing best practices. The baseline of the
document is the writing down of what successful BGP network implementations
have deployed. <>end<>

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

Answer:
<>start<>
Document Shepherd: Gunter Van de Velde
Responsible Area director: Joel Jaeggli
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
The document is complete and ready for publication
<>end<>

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

Answer:
<>start<>
No concerns
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
No need, document is well under control and reviewed
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
The document is well written and there are no specific conserns
<>end<>

(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?

Answer:
<>start<>
No IPR: Jerome Durand, Ivan Pepelnjak & Gerd Doering
<>end<>

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

Answer:
<>start<>
No disclosure
<>end<>

(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?

Answer:
<>start<>
The WG agreed that this is good work and is the output of a general good WG
effort <>end<>

(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.)

Answer:
<>start<>
No threats or other demonstration of extreme discontent
<>end<>

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

Answer:
<>start<>
Idnits are checked.
Authors mentioned that he Unused references are intentional to to provide extra
pointers for information to the reader of the document. <>end<>

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

Answer:
<>start<>
Not applicable
<>end<>

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

Answer:
<>start<>
Yes, they have been identified and classified like that
<>end<>

(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?

Answer:
<>start<>
All Normative references are ready
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
All Normative references are ready
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
This document will not change the state of any existing RFC
<>end<>

(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).

Answer:
<>start<>
No IANA considerations for this document
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
No IANA considerations for this document
<>end<>

(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.

Answer:
<>start<>
Only idnits check, no other tools
<>end<>

Back