Shepherd waits on: -15 with NITs fixed
NITS: (1/13/2021) --
a) MUST not --- moved to MUST NOT
b)RFC8126 -- must replace RFC5226
Date of write-up form: 11/1/2019
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Type: Proposed Standard
Why proper: Adds a capability to the BGP OPEN and a BGP attribute for Only to the customer
Listed in title page: 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:
Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes which violate
assumptions of BGP topology relationships; e.g. passing a route
learned from one lateral peer to another lateral peer or a transit
provider, passing a route learned from one transit provider to
another transit provider or a lateral peer. Existing approaches to
leak prevention rely on marking routes by operator configuration,
with no check that the configuration corresponds to that of the eBGP
neighbor, or enforcement that the two eBGP speakers agree on the
This document enhances BGP OPEN to establish agreement
of the (peer, customer, provider, Route Server, Route Server client)
relationship of two neighboring eBGP speakers to enforce appropriate
configuration on both sides. Propagated routes are then marked with
an Only to Customer (OTC) attribute according to the agreed
relationship, allowing both prevention and detection of route leaks.
Working Group Summary:
Route leaks are a problem that plague the operational Internet for over 20 years.
The WG group consensus for this draft goes across two WGs (GROW and IDR)
with both working group lending their support to define the problem
and design a series of fixes that can be deployed in operational networks.
While the discussions have been lengthy, there is solid support between
operators, researchers, and the membesrs of 2 WGs (GROW and IDR).
standardize the changs to the OPEN and the additions of an "only
to customer" (OTC) flag.
The shepherd has been an active part of guiding this discussion in IDR and
grow for over 5 years. The work from NIST (Doug Montgomery and K. Sriram)
Brian Dickson, Randy Bush (IIJ, Arrcus), Keyur Patel (Arrcus), and
Alexander Azimov and Eugene Bogomazov has investigated
the technology from many angles. The operators and the authors
have word smithed in the last editions to the shepherd's
No MIB, Yang, or Media review: none needed.
Key review: Cross-review with Grow WG that depends on this work
Reviews in Progress: RTG-IDR, OPS-DIR, and IANA early reviews called for
[requested as anticipated document will be in ADs for at least
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alvaro Retana
Co-chairs: Susan Hares and John Scudder.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.
Review done of technology (5+ years)
Review of the write-ups and web-sites of the implementator
NITS: a) MUST NOT, b) RFC8126 must replace RFC5226
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No see above write-up for reason.
Early OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, IANA reviews done while in queue.
(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.
(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. See discussion above.
(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?
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(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?
Strong consensus with broad support from operators, researches, and 2 WGs (IDR, GROW).
The consensus is strong and it links to the following operational documents from the Grow WG:
RFC7908, RFC8212 (updates RFC4271),
The problem and various idea has discussed for over 15 years.
The increasing problem makes the operators push for a resolution.
(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.)
(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.
NITS: (1/13/2021) --
a) MUST not --- moved to MUST NOT
b) RFC8126 -- must replace RFC5226
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
(13) Have all references within this document 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?
(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.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
No changes to existing RFCs. Existing technolgooy.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Pre-allocation for this draft was already done:
1) capability code (value 9)
9 BGP Role (TEMPORARY - registered 2018-03-29, extension registered 2020-03-20, expires 2021-03-29) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy] IETF
2) Error code
8 Role Mismatch (TEMPORARY - registered 2018-03-29, extension registered 2020-03-20, expires 2021-03-29) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy[
3) New Transitive Attribute - OTC
35 Only to Customer (OTC) (TEMPORARY - registered 2018-03-29, extension registered 2020-03-20, expires 2021-03-29) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy]
These allocation should be made permanent.
(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.
BGP Role Reigstry needs to be Expert Review.
Potential Experts (Randy Bush, Grow chairs, Warren Kumari, K. Sriram, Alexander Azimov)
(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.
Only NITs needed
(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?