Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-12

(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? 

Draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib is a Standards track document. 

(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:

The BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) defines access to various Routing Information Bases (RIBs). This document updates BMP (RFC 7854) by adding access to the Local Routing Information Base (Loc-RIB). The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been selected by the local BGP speaker's Decision Process. It is beneficial when applications have access to this specific RIB without being participants of the BGP routing protocol itself.

Working Group Summary:

Good to go.

There was some discussion on what exactly constitutes the Loc-RIB, various vendors have slightly different interpretations of this abstract concept. As shepherd I believe this now has been resolved in Section 3 (“definitions”) which clarifies the contents of the Loc-RIB as received via the BMP protocol potentially are different from what is stored on a BGP node in its local interpretation of Loc-RIB. 

Document Quality:

BMP Local RIB has been implemented on the receiver side in Pmacct and OpenBMP, both are widely deployed collectors. On the BMP export side Cisco, Huawei, and Juniper implemented support for Loc-RIB. This indicates broad support and a need for standardization.

Personnel: Document shepherd is Job Snijders, Area Director is Warren Kumari.

(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 document was reviewed by Job Snijders, this review resulted in a number of editorial changes to help readability and clarification. It is ready for publication.
 
(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. 

No.

(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 specific 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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/OHbbejOtcOjTuB27eFsJoFiBUJY/

(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? 

Solid consensus, the BMP work has been presented a number of times, and interested parties have organized activities at IETF hackathons related to BMP Local RIB.

(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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. 

No nits: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-09.txt


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

Does not contain MIB, YANG, media types, or URI types.

(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. 

No status of existing RFCs is changed. The document does update RFC 7854 to accommodate exposure of the new Routing Information Base, these updates are in line with the BMP protocol design for extensions.

(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). 

All needed IANA assignments have already been requested through IANA Early Allocation procedure. Publication of this document will convert those temporary registry entries.

(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 new registries are defined.

(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, YANG modules, etc.

No formal language is used.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

No YANG module present.
Back