Skip to main content

Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-26
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
06 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2021-06-03
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-05-27
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-03-31
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-03-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2021-03-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2021-03-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2021-03-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2021-03-30
06 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-06.txt
2021-03-30
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2021-03-30
06 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2021-03-29
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2021-03-29
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2021-03-29
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2021-03-29
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2021-03-29
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2021-03-29
05 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2021-03-29
05 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2021-03-29
05 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2021-03-29
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-03-29
05 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2021-03-25
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-03-25
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2021-03-25
05 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-05.txt
2021-03-25
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2021-03-25
05 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2021-03-25
04 (System) Changed action holders to Adrian Farrel, Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2021-03-25
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2021-03-25
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2021-03-25
04 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work done for this document even if the motivations are still unclear to me.

Notably, why RFC 7120 'early …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work done for this document even if the motivations are still unclear to me.

Notably, why RFC 7120 'early allocation' does not work if timing to get entries in the various IANA registries is important?

As I am trusting Alvaro's and John's positive reviews, I am only balloting ABSTAIN [1] while fully supporting Lars' DISCUSS ballot. I also fear making a precedent case used later for other registries.

Regards

-éric

[1] in the sense of "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others"
2021-03-25
04 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2021-03-24
04 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
I support Lars's DISCUSS of everyone else's non-DISCUSS points.  I also came here to type something about why we didn't just follow the …
[Ballot comment]
I support Lars's DISCUSS of everyone else's non-DISCUSS points.  I also came here to type something about why we didn't just follow the provisional/permanent model that so many other registries seem to use (URI schemes, for example, comes to mind).
2021-03-24
04 Murray Kucherawy Ballot comment text updated for Murray Kucherawy
2021-03-24
04 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
I support Lars's DISCUSS of everyone else's non-DISCUSS points.  I also came here to type something about why we didn't just follow the …
[Ballot comment]
I support Lars's DISCUSS of everyone else's non-DISCUSS points.  I also came here to type something about why we didn't just follow the provisional/permanent model that so many other registries seem to use (URI schemes, for example, come to mind).
2021-03-24
04 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2021-03-24
04 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2021-03-24
04 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2021-03-24
04 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
I'm putting in a "discuss" DISCUSS that I expect to clear during the
call. Several other ADs raised issues that deserve discussion. While …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm putting in a "discuss" DISCUSS that I expect to clear during the
call. Several other ADs raised issues that deserve discussion. While they may
not fall under the "discuss criteria", they also don't fall under the "discuss
non-criteria" and I want to make sure we spent some time on discussing them.
2021-03-24
04 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1, paragraph 4, comment:
>    In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here,
>    the DE …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2.1, paragraph 4, comment:
>    In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here,
>    the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the
>    requested code points.  The following points apply to the registries
>    discussed in this document:
>

The process outlined in the rest of this section seems to define rules that are
basically equivalent to doing an RFC7120 "early allocation" for these
registries. Why is that existing process not sufficient?
2021-03-24
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2021-03-24
04 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
I would like to be able to thank the author for writing and progressing this document. And as it happens, I am. So, …
[Ballot comment]
I would like to be able to thank the author for writing and progressing this document. And as it happens, I am. So, thanks.
2021-03-24
04 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2021-03-24
04 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2021-03-23
04 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2021-03-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Clearing discuss based on text in the editor's copy.

%%% original DISCUSS section follows %%%

This document changes the registration policy to "Expert …
[Ballot comment]
Clearing discuss based on text in the editor's copy.

%%% original DISCUSS section follows %%%

This document changes the registration policy to "Expert Review" which,
as even quoted in this document, "has no requirement for a formal
document".  Yet the specific guidance to the expert is written as if
there will always be a document: consider "[i]f the document is not
adopted by the IDR Working Group", "IANA will update [...] a reference
to the associated document", "[i]n the event that the document is", ...

Is there a requirement for a document or not?  (Alternately, what
happens if there is a request with no associated document?)

%%% original COMMENT section follows %%%

Section 2

The order the sub-registries are listed in here does not match the order
used at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
.

Section 2.1

  2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
      from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
      documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
      documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.

Am I reading this correctly that the only provision for non-IETF
documents to allocate codepoints is to violate the "SHOULD" here?  (I
assume they would still go through the IDR review, etc.)

  5.  The Designated Experts MUST then review the assignment requests
      on their technical merit.  The Designated Experts MAY raise
      issues related to the allocation request for further
      consideration before the assignments are made.

Further consideration by whom, in what venue?  (When does the further
discussion terminate?)

  8.  In the event that the document is a Working Group document or is
      AD Sponsored, and that document fails to progress to publication
      as an RFC, the Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact IANA to
      coordinate about marking the code points as deprecated.  A
      deprecated code point is not marked as allocated for use and is
      not available for allocation in a future document.  The WG chairs
      may inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely
      de-allocated (i.e., made available for new allocations) at any

IIRC it is rather unusual for WG chairs to interact directly with IANA
in an official role; we see DEs and ADs be named more often.  (Not that
I'm asking for more work for ADs, of course!)

Section 3

I appreciate the new security considerations :)
2021-03-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2021-03-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
This document changes the registration policy to "Expert Review" which,
as even quoted in this document, "has no requirement for a formal
document".  …
[Ballot discuss]
This document changes the registration policy to "Expert Review" which,
as even quoted in this document, "has no requirement for a formal
document".  Yet the specific guidance to the expert is written as if
there will always be a document: consider "[i]f the document is not
adopted by the IDR Working Group", "IANA will update [...] a reference
to the associated document", "[i]n the event that the document is", ...

Is there a requirement for a document or not?  (Alternately, what
happens if there is a request with no associated document?)
2021-03-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Section 2

The order the sub-registries are listed in here does not match the order
used at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
.

Section 2.1

  2.  …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2

The order the sub-registries are listed in here does not match the order
used at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
.

Section 2.1

  2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
      from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
      documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
      documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.

Am I reading this correctly that the only provision for non-IETF
documents to allocate codepoints is to violate the "SHOULD" here?  (I
assume they would still go through the IDR review, etc.)

  5.  The Designated Experts MUST then review the assignment requests
      on their technical merit.  The Designated Experts MAY raise
      issues related to the allocation request for further
      consideration before the assignments are made.

Further consideration by whom, in what venue?  (When does the further
discussion terminate?)

  8.  In the event that the document is a Working Group document or is
      AD Sponsored, and that document fails to progress to publication
      as an RFC, the Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact IANA to
      coordinate about marking the code points as deprecated.  A
      deprecated code point is not marked as allocated for use and is
      not available for allocation in a future document.  The WG chairs
      may inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely
      de-allocated (i.e., made available for new allocations) at any

IIRC it is rather unusual for WG chairs to interact directly with IANA
in an official role; we see DEs and ADs be named more often.  (Not that
I'm asking for more work for ADs, of course!)

Section 3

I appreciate the new security considerations :)
2021-03-23
04 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2021-03-22
04 Martin Vigoureux
[Ballot comment]
Hello Adrian, WG,

I'm not always sure what are the appropriate DISCUSS criteria for a process document. I hesitated and in the end …
[Ballot comment]
Hello Adrian, WG,

I'm not always sure what are the appropriate DISCUSS criteria for a process document. I hesitated and in the end chose NoObj. I'd nevertheless really appreciate if we could discuss theses points.

The Document allows for an Expert to consider a request which doesn't arise from a WG document (or an AD sponsored one) and does so by using SHOULD in the following:
  2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
      from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
      documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
      documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.
and confirms that in:
  4.  If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its
      successor),
I am perfectly fine with that.
However, would it be fair to expect from the Expert that he/she communicates to the list (as part of step 4) the "valid reasons" and "full implications" of agreeing to consider this particular request?

Also, it isn't clear to me whether an Expert can refuse an allocation to be made and what would be the criteria for supporting such decision.
I do read
  5.  The Designated Experts MUST then review the assignment requests
      on their technical merit.
This could potentially result in a refusal, but I'm not sure in fact, but if it allows for a refusal then that's very vague.
There is of course point 6. but that's given.
Another way (not completely equivalent) of saying this is that I get the impression that except in obvious cases (e.g., 6), all requests will be granted. Is that the case?


Thank you
-m
2021-03-22
04 Martin Vigoureux Ballot comment text updated for Martin Vigoureux
2021-03-22
04 Martin Vigoureux
[Ballot comment]
Hello Adrian, WG,

I'm not always sure what are the appropriate DISCUSS criteria for a process document. I hesitated and in the end …
[Ballot comment]
Hello Adrian, WG,

I'm not always sure what are the appropriate DISCUSS criteria for a process document. I hesitated and in the end chose NoObj. I'd nevertheless really appreciate if we could discuss theses points.

The Document allows for an Expert to consider a request which doesn't arise from a WG document (or an AD sponsored one) and does so by using SHOULD in the following:
  2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
      from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
      documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
      documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.
and confirms that in:
  4.  If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its
      successor),
I am perfectly fine with that.
However, would it be fair to expect from the Expert that he/she communicates to the list (as part of step 4) the "valid reasons" and "full implications" of agreeing to consider this particular request?

Also, it isn't clear to me whether an Expert can refuse an allocation to be made and what would be the criteria for supporting such situation.
I do read
  5.  The Designated Experts MUST then review the assignment requests
      on their technical merit.
This could potentially result in a refusal, but I'm not sure in fact, but if it allows for a refusal then that's very vague.
There is of course point 6. but that's given.
Another way (not completely equivalent) of saying this is that I get the impression that except in obvious cases (e.g., 6), all requests will be granted. Is that the case?


Thank you
-m
2021-03-22
04 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2021-03-22
04 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this document.

My first observation on this document is that it does not really explain why this change is …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thank you for this document.

My first observation on this document is that it does not really explain why this change is being made.  I think that it would be helpful  for readers if the introduction briefly explained why the allocation policy is being changed.

However, I have the same concern that Martin raised, i.e., this uses an IANA "Expert Review" classification where the instructions to follow are broadly "IETF Review" or "Standards Action", and I don't understand why one of those classifications isn't being used instead.

Section 4.11 of RFC8216 explains that the use of well-known policies aids community experience and wide understanding, and that the policies are in increasing order of strictness.  But the use of "Expert Review" does not match what I would naturally expect that IANA policy to mean.

Regards,
Rob
2021-03-22
04 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2021-03-16
04 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
Upon further reflection, my concerns below don't meet the DISCUSS criteria. Reclassifying:

I would like to understand the intent of this document a …
[Ballot comment]
Upon further reflection, my concerns below don't meet the DISCUSS criteria. Reclassifying:

I would like to understand the intent of this document a little better.

RFC 8126 subtly implies that "Expert Review" is a little laxer than "specification required". But the guidance to experts in this draft seems to closely match "IETF Review" (sec 4.8 of 8126) except that it allows documents to get an allocation at an earlier stage in the process. The shepherd comment that "RFC Required" was an alternative proposal also indicates that the intent to become more, not less, strict. Indeed, the main change appears to be eliminating allocations to non-IETF-stream documents.

So why not simply change the registry to "IETF Review" and allow provisional allocations? It would be much easier to use established mechanisms and standard definitions than rewriting them in this document. Is the SHOULD in Sec 2.1 carrying a lot of weight here?
2021-03-16
04 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Duke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2021-03-16
04 Martin Duke
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to understand the intent of this document a little better.

RFC 8126 subtly implies that "Expert Review" is a little …
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to understand the intent of this document a little better.

RFC 8126 subtly implies that "Expert Review" is a little laxer than "specification required". But the guidance to experts in this draft seems to closely match "IETF Review" (sec 4.8 of 8126) except that it allows documents to get an allocation at an earlier stage in the process. The shepherd comment that "RFC Required" was an alternative proposal also indicates that the intent to become more, not less, strict. Indeed, the main change appears to be eliminating allocations to non-IETF-stream documents.

So why not simply change the registry to "IETF Review" and allow provisional allocations? It would be much easier to use established mechanisms and standard definitions than rewriting them in this document. Is the SHOULD in Sec 2.1 carrying a lot of weight here?
2021-03-16
04 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2021-03-16
04 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-03-25
2021-03-16
04 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2021-03-16
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2021-03-16
04 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2021-03-16
04 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2021-03-16
04 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2021-03-16
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2021-03-15
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2021-03-15
04 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04. 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-bgp-ls-registry-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there is a single action to complete.

There are currently four registries listed under the heading "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/

BGP-LS NLRI-Types
BGP-LS Protocol-IDs
BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs
BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs

Upon approval of this document, the registration procedure for each of these registries will be changed from "Specification Required" to "Expert Review," as defined by RFC 8126.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2021-03-05
04 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Review has been revised by Elwyn Davies.
2021-03-05
04 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Review has been revised by Elwyn Davies.
2021-03-05
04 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Review has been revised by Elwyn Davies.
2021-03-05
04 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list.
2021-03-02
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein.
2021-02-26
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2021-02-26
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2021-02-26
04 Francis Dupont Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Francis Dupont was rejected
2021-02-25
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein
2021-02-25
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein
2021-02-25
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley
2021-02-25
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to John Bradley
2021-02-25
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2021-02-25
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2021-02-24
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2021-02-24
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2021-02-23
04 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2021-02-23
04 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-03-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Jie Dong , Susan Hares , aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-03-16):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Jie Dong , Susan Hares , aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, jie.dong@huawei.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Updates to the Allocation Policy for the
Border Gateway Protocol -
  Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries'
  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 2021-03-16. 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


  RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).  IANA
  created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border
  Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a
  number of sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for
  those registries is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126.

  This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for
  all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance
  to the Designated Experts.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2021-02-23
04 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2021-02-23
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Removed all action holders (In IETF LC.)
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2021-02-23
04 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was changed
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2021-02-23
04 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2021-02-20
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2021-02-20
04 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04.txt
2021-02-20
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2021-02-20
04 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2021-02-18
03 Alvaro Retana === AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SgDYfgEmAVSuy2LvkSXkaP4vFdY/
2021-02-18
03 (System) Changed action holders to Adrian Farrel (IESG state changed)
2021-02-18
03 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-02-18
03 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party
2020-12-17
03 Alvaro Retana The text has significantly changed -- it will go through a new WGLC.
2020-12-17
03 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2020-12-09
03 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03.txt
2020-12-09
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2020-12-09
03 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2020-12-08
02 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-12-08
02 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
2020-12-08
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2020-12-08
02 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2020-11-16
01 Alvaro Retana === AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jg610Uyj_an91WLeZ9Izq6949e8/
2020-11-16
01 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2020-11-15
01 Alvaro Retana This document now replaces draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry instead of None
2020-11-15
01 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2020-11-15
01 Alvaro Retana
Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com …
Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>
2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

This document is requested as a Proposed Standard.
It updates RFC 7752 (a Proposed Standard) and requests IANA action for a registry.
The intended status is shown at the head of the 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:

RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).  IANA created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for those policies is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126.

This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance to the Designated Experts.


Working Group Summary:

Working group progress was smooth with some difficulty in getting more comments beyond "Yes, just do it."


Document Quality:

There is nothing to implement in this document: all it does is make a change to an IANA registry.
John Scudder, Donald Eastlake, and Ketan Talaulikar all gave careful reviews.


Personnel:

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

Document Shepherd: Jie Dong 
Responsible AD: 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 document shepherd carried out a careful review of the document and sent comments to the authors. They have updated the document as necessary.

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

No concerns. The WG has had good opportunity to review the document and a number of BGP experts have commented.

(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.

The IANA registry concerned has Designated Experts. One is the author of this document, and the other approved the idea of this work.
No other such review 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.

No 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/idr/86HCLs-LfuARtDmdT6AxYrXfKWM/

(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?

This is a short procedural draft so getting enthusiastic responses from the working group was hard. This caused the chairs to extend the last call to make sure that there was adequate support.
In the end, eight members of IDR expressed support for this document.
One suggested that "RFC Required" would be a better assignment policy, but they indicated that they could live with "Expert Review" as
described in this document.

(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.

id-nits reports no issues.
id-nits incorrectly suggests that this document is intended to update RFC 8126.

(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 review criteria apply.
The registry is subject to Designated Expert review - see point 5).

(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.

This document updates RFC 7752.
This is indicated in the header, Abstract, and Introduction.
The whole document describes the nature of the update.

(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).

The purpose of this document is to describe IANA registry changes.
The document is authored by one of the Designated Experts for this registry.
The document clearly identifies the registry and the actions requested of IANA.
The document also includes clear guidance to Designated Experts.

(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 created.
The modified registry already has Designated Experts.

(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.
idspell reveals a typo s/Gorup/Group/

(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 in this document.

2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2020-11-01
01 Susan Hares Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2020-08-02
01 Jie Dong
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

This document is requested as a Proposed Standard.
It updates RFC 7752 (a Proposed Standard) and requests IANA action for a registry.
The intended status is shown at the head of the 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:

RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).  IANA created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for those policies is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126.

This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance to the Designated Experts.


Working Group Summary:

Working group progress was smooth with some difficulty in getting more comments beyond "Yes, just do it."


Document Quality:

There is nothing to implement in this document: all it does is make a change to an IANA registry.
John Scudder, Donald Eastlake, and Ketan Talaulikar all gave careful reviews.


Personnel:

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

Document Shepherd: Jie Dong 
Responsible AD: 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 document shepherd carried out a careful review of the document and sent comments to the authors. They have updated the document as necessary.

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

No concerns. The WG has had good opportunity to review the document and a number of BGP experts have commented.

(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.

The IANA registry concerned has Designated Experts. One is the author of this document, and the other approved the idea of this work.
No other such review 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.

No 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/idr/86HCLs-LfuARtDmdT6AxYrXfKWM/

(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?

This is a short procedural draft so getting enthusiastic responses from the working group was hard. This caused the chairs to extend the last call to make sure that there was adequate support.
In the end, eight members of IDR expressed support for this document.
One suggested that "RFC Required" would be a better assignment policy, but they indicated that they could live with "Expert Review" as
described in this document.

(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.

id-nits reports no issues.
id-nits incorrectly suggests that this document is intended to update RFC 8126.

(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 review criteria apply.
The registry is subject to Designated Expert review - see point 5).

(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.

This document updates RFC 7752.
This is indicated in the header, Abstract, and Introduction.
The whole document describes the nature of the update.

(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).

The purpose of this document is to describe IANA registry changes.
The document is authored by one of the Designated Experts for this registry.
The document clearly identifies the registry and the actions requested of IANA.
The document also includes clear guidance to Designated Experts.

(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 created.
The modified registry already has Designated Experts.

(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.
idspell reveals a typo s/Gorup/Group/

(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 in this document.

2020-07-31
01 Susan Hares Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com> from Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
2020-07-31
01 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Jie Dong
2020-05-21
01 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01.txt
2020-05-21
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2020-05-21
01 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2020-03-09
00 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2020-03-03
00 Susan Hares WG LC occurred 11/20 to 12/3.  However, we did not receive enough comments. 
Recycle this WG LC again.
2020-03-03
00 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-03-03
00 Susan Hares Notification list changed to Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
2020-03-03
00 Susan Hares Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares
2019-11-19
00 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-00.txt
2019-11-19
00 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2019-11-19
00 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision