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 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested ? Proposed standard
Why is this the proper type of RFC? Adds features to RFC7752
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes
(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:
Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz.
OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined
(and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is
performed by routers participating in the specific network in a
distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition
provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS-
IS flooding) through the network.
BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology
information from the network. This draft defines extensions to BGP-
LS address-family to advertise the Flexible Algorithm Definition as a
part of the topology information from the network.
Working Group Summary:
Consensus was normal for the BGP-LS documents with the corresponding OSPF and
ISIS document and implementation.
Document Quality:
Implementations of the protocol:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo%20implementations
Personnel:
Document shepherd: Jie Dong
WG co-chairs: Susan Hares, Jeff Haas, Keyur Patel
AD: Alvaro Retana
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.
The document shepherd performed the review on:
1) Nits
2) Technical review
3) Implementation report
4) IPR check
The document shepherd provided the review comments on version -05 to the
authors, and those comments have been resolved in version -06, thus this
document is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
Early Reviews has been requested for RTG-DIR, and the review comments have been
resolved.
(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.
Nothing beyond the normal checks.
(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.
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?
Ketan Talaulikar: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HuPLM2ZJrk6J7af2x8Ue6Vu9q94/
Peter Psenak: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JofdkQ3Bv9ERv4-m7KWsCLGrChg/
Shawn Zandi: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-5sVRI69d8C6P9nRNF5CJaJ62A/
Gaurav Dawra: no IPR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EnOGHSM9U97_WyTzyUOfJdnJ9IM/
(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 disclosure.
(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 defines the BGP-LS extensions corresponding to the IGP Flex-Algo
extensions, which has been widely discussed in LSR WG, there was not much
discussion about the technical part in the WG, while the consensus on the
publication of this document is solid.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
none.
(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.
None.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
All references have been identified as either 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?
No, all normative references are either RFCs or WG documents which passed the
WG last call.
(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 8126).
IANA has allocated the following code points from the registry "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
+------------+----------------------------------------+----------+
| Code Point | Description | Length |
+------------+----------------------------------------+----------+
| 1039 | Flex Algorithm Definition TLV | variable |
| 1040 | Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable |
| 1041 | Flex Algo Include Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable |
| 1042 | Flex Algo Include All Affinity sub-TLV | variable |
| 1043 | Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV | variable |
| 1044 | Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV | variable |
| 1045 | Flex Algorithm Exclude SRLG sub-TLV | variable |
+------------+----------------------------------------+----------+
The IANA consideration section is consistent with the body of the document.
One concern about the code point allocation is that both the Flex-Algo
Definition TLV and its sub-TLVs are allocated with code points from this
registry in parrallel.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
N/A
(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.