As required by RFC 4858, template: 2/24/2012
(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?
Standard - Augments the bgp route selection process for
route reflectors. No additional "on-wire" changes are made, but
the BGP route selection process is part of RFC4271, and
the route reflector specification: RFC4456
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:
This document proposes a solution for BGP route reflectors to allow
them to choose the best path for their clients that the clients
themselves would have chosen under the same conditions, without
requiring further state or any new features to be placed on the
clients. This facilitates, for example, best exit point policy (hot
potato routing). This solution is primarily applicable in
deployments using centralized route reflectors.
The solution relies upon all route reflectors learning all paths
which are eligible for consideration. Best path selection is
performed in each route reflector based on a configured virtual
location in the IGP. The location can be the same for all clients or
different per peer/update group or per peer. Best path selection can
also be performed based on user configured policies in each route
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
The WG LC was done in 2017.
The delay in publication is due to waiting for implementatinos
and shepherd delays. Susan Hares picked up the draft from
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
3 implementations since 2018
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Cisco, Juniper, Nokia are 3 major vendors
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?
RTG-DIR (Daniele Ceccarelli): indicated only NITs.
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares (2nd)
John Scudder (1st),
Area Director: Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR QA: Daniele Ceccarelli
SEC-DIR QA: (TBD)
(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
2) Line by line review (editorial)
a) editorial on text - sent via xML
b) requirement for the security section to changer.
3) Checks on the implementation reports
4) sequence of pre-reviews with AD and author resulted in -21.txt
The sequence of the reviews improved the document to
include specific changes to the BGP algorithm.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(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
Normal reviews during LC should be sufficient
(OPS-DIR, Sec-DIR, RTG-DIR).
Since Alvaro has a longish queue, I am asking for pre-reviews of this document.
(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?
Version -21 has resolved previous concerns with the document.
Version -21 specifies clear changes to the protocol.
(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
WG did not have a problem with the IPR.
(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. Implementations demonstrate this is useful in the Internet.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
Verbose check done. The ID nits errors
are bugs in ID NITS.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review.
(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.
No downward normative 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.
No change to existing documents. This is a new feature.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
No IANA Requests
(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 IANA requests.
(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.
No automated reviews.