An Overview of BGPsec
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-06-16
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-06-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | In consultation with the WG Chairs and the Authors it was decided that there's no need to formally publish this document. |
2017-06-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Dead from AD Evaluation::External Party |
2016-12-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | I am waiting for the base specification (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol) to at least clear IESG Evaluation before proceeding with this document. |
2016-12-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested |
2016-12-15
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com>, aretana@cisco.com from "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com> |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | 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 … 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? The document header says: Intended status: Informational This document is an overview of the BGPsec protocol and its usage as described in detail in a set of SIDR working group documents. The Informational status is appropriate. (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 provides an overview of a security extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) referred to as BGPsec. BGPsec (Border Gateway Protocol Security) is an extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides improved security for BGP routing [RFC4271]. This document contains a brief overview of BGPsec and its envisioned usage. 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? This document is an overview of the BGPsec protocol and its usage as described in detail in a set of SIDR working group documents. The WG discussion of that document set was thorough and detailed. There was no controversy about this overview. It was discussed at IETF80 and has been through 8 versions. 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? This document is an informational overview of the BGPsec protocol. The protocol itself has two open source implementations. Stephen Kent and Wes George are noted as having done especially thorough or significant reviews. The document does not define a MIB and does not need an expert review. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? The document shepherd is Sandra Murphy. The Responsible Area Director is 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. The shepherd has personally reviewed this document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews of this document. (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 particular or broader review is needed. (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. The document shepherd has no concerns about this document. (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. All authors have confirmed all appropriate IPR disclosures have been made. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR has been filed against this document. (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? This document is an overview of the BGPsec protocol as described in detail in a set of SIDR working group documents. The documents it covers have been thoroughly discussed in the working group and the WG as a whole understands them. There has been no controversy over this overview. (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 appeal has been threatened. (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. The ID nits check reports no problems: Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document required no such formal review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are identified as normative or informative. (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? There are no normative references that are not ready for advancement. Normative references are to published RFCs and to SIDR working group drafts for which publication has been requested. (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. There are no downward references. (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. This document makes no change in the status of any existing RFC. (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). The IANA considerations section notes there are no considerations. No new IANA registries are created and there are no references to existing IANA registries. (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. The document creates no new IANA 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. The document has no such formal language |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Changed document writeup |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Changed document writeup |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Notification list changed to "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com> |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Document shepherd changed to Sandra L. Murphy |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Latest version satisfied wg commenters. |
2016-09-02
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2016-06-23
|
08 | Sean Turner | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-08.txt |
2015-10-07
|
07 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-06-14
|
07 | Matt Lepinski | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-07.txt |
2015-01-15
|
06 | Matt Lepinski | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-06.txt |
2014-07-04
|
05 | Matt Lepinski | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-05.txt |
2013-12-16
|
04 | Matt Lepinski | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-04.txt |
2013-07-15
|
03 | Matt Lepinski | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-03.txt |
2012-05-08
|
02 | Matt Lepinski | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-02.txt |
2011-10-31
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-01.txt |
2011-06-15
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-00.txt |