Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-08-04
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-07-07
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-04-21
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2021-04-14
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2019-08-19
|
19 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2019-08-19
|
19 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Joel Jaeggli was marked no-response |
2019-06-28
|
19 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Lou Berger was marked no-response |
2019-05-23
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-05-23
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-05-23
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-05-22
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-05-20
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2019-05-20
|
19 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-05-20
|
19 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-05-20
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-05-20
|
19 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-05-20
|
19 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-05-20
|
19 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-05-17
|
19 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-05-17
|
19 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-05-16
|
19 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-05-16
|
19 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-05-16
|
19 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-05-16
|
19 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19.txt |
2019-05-16
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-16
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Saikat Ray , Ketan Talaulikar , Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils , Keyur Patel , Stefano Previdi |
2019-05-16
|
19 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-16
|
18 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot comment] Hi, thanks for this document. I only have a minor comment: Throughout the document, PeerNode SID, PeerAdj SID and PeerSet SID are used … [Ballot comment] Hi, thanks for this document. I only have a minor comment: Throughout the document, PeerNode SID, PeerAdj SID and PeerSet SID are used but the IANA section and existing registry use Peer-Node-SID, Peer-Adj-SID, Peer-Set-SID. Although there can't be any confusion, it might be worth having a single naming. |
2019-05-16
|
18 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-05-15
|
18 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this (and to Sheng for the OpsDir review). I especially wanted to thank you / the WG for the … [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this (and to Sheng for the OpsDir review). I especially wanted to thank you / the WG for the "6. Manageability Considerations" section... I have a few nits to offer: "SR segments allows to enforce a flow through any topological" This needs a subject ("SR segments allows the network to enforce a flow through any topological..."? or "SR segments allows steering a flow through any topological..." might be better) - actually, the sentence seems clumsy, but I cannot figure out how to reword it to be better. "An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of SIDs to steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected egress border router C of the AS, and to a specific EBGP peer." - I'm not sure if this was copied from some earlier text / a diagram, but the 'C' is not needed / is confusing. "3. BGP-LS NLRI Advertisement for BGP Protocol his section describes ..." Missing a 'T' |
2019-05-15
|
18 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-05-15
|
18 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-05-15
|
18 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-05-14
|
18 | Adam Roach | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work that everyone involved has put into this document. I have only two minor editorial comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1: > This … [Ballot comment] Thanks for the work that everyone involved has put into this document. I have only two minor editorial comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1: > This > use-case comprises of a centralized controller that learns the BGP Nit: "This use case is composed of a centralized controller..." or "This use case comprises a centralized controller..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3: > his section describes the BGP-LS NLRI encodings that describe the BGP > peering and link connectivity between BGP routers. Nit: "This section..." |
2019-05-14
|
18 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-05-14
|
18 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-05-14
|
18 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-05-13
|
18 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Just editorial stuff... Throughout: “i.e.” needs a comma after it. So does “e.g.”. — Section 1 — SR can be directly applied … [Ballot comment] Just editorial stuff... Throughout: “i.e.” needs a comma after it. So does “e.g.”. — Section 1 — SR can be directly applied to either an MPLS dataplane (SR/MPLS) with no change on the forwarding plane or to a modified IPv6 forwarding Make it “either to” so it’s parallel with the “or to” that comes later. centralized controller based BGP Egress Peer Engineering solution involving SR path computation using the BGP Peering Segments. This use-case comprises of a centralized controller that learns the BGP “Centralized-controller-based” is a compound adjective that needs to be hyphenated. “Use case” is a noun, and should not be hyphenated. And “comprises” should not have “of” after it (“consists of” would, though). |
2019-05-13
|
18 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-05-13
|
18 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-05-13
|
18 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-05-13
|
18 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-05-11
|
18 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-04-26
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-05-16 |
2019-04-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-04-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2019-04-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-04-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-04-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-04-17
|
18 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-04-16
|
18 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-18. 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-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-18. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, in the BGP-LS Protocol-IDs registry on the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ the existing, early registration of value 7 (BGP) will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, in the BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry also on the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ the existing, early registrations of values 516 (BGP Router-ID) and 517 (BGP Confederation Member) will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Third, also in the BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs registry also on the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ the existing, early registrations of values 1101 (Peer-Node-SID ), 1102 (Peer-Adj-SID) and 1103 (Peer-Set-SID) will be made permanent and their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-04-16
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-04-06
|
18 | Joel Halpern | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. |
2019-04-04
|
18 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2019-04-04
|
18 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2019-04-04
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lou Berger |
2019-04-04
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lou Berger |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com., … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares , idr-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com., aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to consider the following document: - 'BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-04-17. 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 Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR segments allow steering a flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. This document describes an extension to BGP Link State (BGP-LS) for advertisement of BGP Peering Segments along with their BGP peering node information so that efficient BGP Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) policies and strategies can be computed based on Segment Routing. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2721/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2611/ |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-04-03
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-03-24
|
18 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-03-24
|
18 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-18.txt |
2019-03-24
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-24
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Saikat Ray , Ketan Talaulikar , Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils , Keyur Patel , Stefano Previdi |
2019-03-24
|
18 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-01
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-17 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gj8Pus9OHf0yAGr1m2-8Nb5WivE |
2019-03-01
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-02-12
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-11-30
|
17 | Sheng Jiang | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. Sent review to list. |
2018-11-28
|
17 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com.> |
2018-11-19
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2018-11-19
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2018-11-09
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Carl Wallace. |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | As required by RFC 4858 template: 24 February 2012. 1) Resent Grow WG call (11/4/2015) 2) SEC-DIR and OPS-DIR early call also in progress. 3) … As required by RFC 4858 template: 24 February 2012. 1) Resent Grow WG call (11/4/2015) 2) SEC-DIR and OPS-DIR early call also in progress. 3) Sent to Alvaro with the above two issues in progress. =============== (1) Type of RFC: Standards Why: This draft extends RFC7752 to add passing BGP topology information for regarding BGP Peers in BGP for the use of traffic engineering E-BGP peering links (BGP EPE from draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15, and draft-ietf-springsegement-routing-central-epe-10). The BGP-LS NLRI is adding a "protocol-ID" for BGP-LS NLRI to indicate it is passing BGP peer information. The BGP-LS NLRI in the Link NLRI is adding BGP Router-ID and AS. The BGP attribute for BGP-LS is adding link TLVs to indicate a segment ID (SID) to identify a BGP-Peering node (Peer-Node-SID), a BGP Peering interface (Peer-Adj-SID) (if multipole interfaces exist), and a BGP Peer grouping (Peer-Set-SID). (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 Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions (called segments) by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR allows SR instructions to enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS dataplane with no change on the MPLS forwarding plane, and can be applied to a modified IPv6 forwarding plane (SRv6). SR requires extensions to the existing link-state routing protocols and BGP to support its features. This document describes an extension to the BGP-LS NLRI and BGP attribute for BGP-LS (RFC7752) in order to export BGP peering node topology information (including its peers, peering interfaces, and the AS numbers of the peers ) so that devices can compute efficient Segment Routing pathways across inter-domain pathways. Working Group Summary The WG has reviewed the BGP-LS segment routing drafts for 3-5 years in coordination with the SPRING, MPLS, and BESS working groups. Please read the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing and draft-ietf-spring-segement-routing-central-epe-15 to understand the architecture construct. This draft is one of a family of BGP additions for BGP-LS segment routing (SR) and and BGP Traffic Engineering (TE) that IDR is standardizing after receiving reports of 2 independent implementations. Other drafts for segment routing reading for standardization include: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext. Other drafts for BGP-LS based TE include: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension and draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? yes - see links below Reviews meriting special comments: a) Shepherd review required document to alter the manageabiltiy and security b) Grow WG has been asked to review this document for operational usefulness c) early secdir review Why the special attention? The information contained in the BGP extensions provides substantial information regarding a network. Summary of why shepherd has sent forward -17.txt draft to IESG ----------------------------------- The inclusion of the reference in the security consideration in -17.txt of a specific reference to RFC8402 (SR architecture) and a clear statement that these BGP-LS extensions are to be operated in a trusted domain with isolated BGP peers with filtering restrictions so that this information cannot go outside this peers. In my understandings, these restrictions form a web of trusted BGP peers. If these BGP peers operate in the SR-MPLS environment, the security analysis provided by RFC4381 should apply. These security restrictions are in addition to the RFC7752 security restrictions. Since RFC7752 does not provide require a trusted domain or BGP-LS isolation these additional restrictions are important. Personnel Document Shepherd: Susan Hares Responsible AD: Alvaro Retana RTG-DIR: Ravi Singh https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg17811.html 2 implementations from Cisco (chairs check 6/14/2017) https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg18262.html https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QKJcuPAV4zWZq_7JtdKqbe0UcSI Wiki report on implementations https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe%20 . Cisco Router platforms running IOS-XR release 6.0.2 . Cisco Nexus Switch N9000/N3000 platforms running NX-OS 7.0(3)I5(1) or great Error in Early allocation (Alvaro Retana) - 4/6/2018 https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19220.html https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zvLcRFPKY4Sa79jWBgyEDtcey2s Acee's response clearing this issue: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe version-15 shepherd's report https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19473.html (major issues: iBGP usage, minor issue: error handling text version-17 shepherd's comments: IETF Adoption call (5/31 -6/16/2015) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qj4FfG4BcPepQf3rwiD-dQtdvdU WG LC (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/LTwAUcIwNCx0ZvPhNhhsZ0q0-JM Chair’s announcing the conclusion to WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a3BbEHaLaJvA7rFn9hzxsl7BaYY 1 Week WG LC on changes during shepherding process https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg20025.html (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. Shepherd: scanned all emails regarding this draft. Compared this draft against all SPRING drafts (which had conflicting pointers (but that's an IDR problem)), BGP-LS drafts, BGP-LS drafts for IDR, and upcoming BGP SRv6 drafts. Shepherd worked with authors to improve document to resolve unclear language in text on manageability, error handling, and security consideratons. Shepherd sent this document to Grow for operational review and secdir for early security analysis. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The use of BGP-LS by segment routing is an emerging area of technology. Those IETF people working on this area have been pushing the technology forward in individual pieces. The read through all the Spring, IDR, MPLS drafts related to BGP-LS, BGP-LS based TE, general BGP-LS as a transport indicated that the authors have not had time to create seamless document groups. Two things need to be seamless for deployment: 1) operationally protocols with clear error handling and manageability sections, and 2) cohesiveeasily readable documents to allow spread of the technology. My concern is that the SR routing technology is not had enough independent reviews to be seamless operationally. The seamless cohesive document will come in time if this technology is successful. Due to this status, the shepherd engaged in extra reviews (which caused consternation of the authors at times), in operational usefulness and security. (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. RTR-DIR and OPS-DIR are aware of this work. However, it is important that they review the final documents. An early secdir review has been requested, but due to IETF 103 - it may run into the publication. (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? Adding the BGP topology information to BGP-LS (RFC7752) so that BGP Peers can offload TE for E-BGP peers to a centeralized controller has strong benefits and risks. However, this draft restricts those additions to the trusted domain of RFC8402 with specific comments on BGP peer isolate. With these additional restrictions to the lack of security or isolation in BGP-LS (RFC7752) have been resolved for this Segment-Routing document. Other issues regarding BGP-LS as a transport for this information or a whether new types of TCP security should be required for BGP-LS are more architectural issues for BGP or IGPs, and not specific to this document. (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. Stefano Previdi (during adoption call) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DJaDqmUDnZlQEYF1Ge5Pur2cjIk https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19493.html Clarence Filsfils https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19484.html Keyur Patel https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19487.html S. Ray https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19494.html Jie Dong https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg17407.html https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_KcpRVBJ7-yChHOuX6rhFEVXUz0 Contributors Mach Chen https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg17406.html https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NhroZ8vDEY_upMrb4bshduzcLtk Acee Lindem https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg17402.html (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe 2 IPR disclosures prior to WG LC Sent to WG on Wed, 02 December 2015 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0fzoUC1slnBYy8xfWOLwhJsowEw [Unclear, but before adoption call and WG LC] (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? https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19116.html A second call was done on: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg20025.html (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 disconnect except with the extension of BGP-LS (RFC7752) by Tony Li and Robert Raszuk. (see links below from another BGP-LS routing draft) https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19124.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19125.html (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 thorough. Nits: == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-09 We are modifying both this document and draf-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segement-routing-ext document to submit the IESG at the same time. We will adjust both before submission. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. not applicable (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes The shepherd wishes the AD to review whether draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-10 is normative or informative. It is left as 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? none (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. None. (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 - these are extensions to BGP-LS as a standard. (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 5226). AFIK - this is IANA Ok. It has been through early review. (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 expert guidance needed. (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 XML on final document. |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2018-11-04
|
17 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-26
|
17 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2018-10-26
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2018-10-26
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2018-10-25
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2018-10-25
|
17 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Carl Wallace |
2018-10-20
|
17 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2018-10-20
|
17 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2018-10-20
|
17 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-19
|
17 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-17.txt |
2018-10-19
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-19
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Saikat Ray , Ketan Talaulikar , Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils , Keyur Patel , Stefano Previdi |
2018-10-19
|
17 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-15
|
16 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-16.txt |
2018-10-15
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-15
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi |
2018-10-15
|
16 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-06
|
15 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-06-25
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-18
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2018-06-18
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2018-06-17
|
15 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2018-06-17
|
15 | Susan Hares | Shepherd review and missing IPR needs to be addressed |
2018-06-17
|
15 | Susan Hares | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2018-06-16
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-16
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-15
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-15
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-15
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-15
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-06-15
|
15 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2018-03-05
|
15 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-15.txt |
2018-03-05
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel |
2018-03-05
|
15 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-12-20
|
14 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-14.txt |
2017-12-20
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-12-20
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi |
2017-12-20
|
14 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-20
|
13 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-13.txt |
2017-06-20
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-20
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Clarence Filsfils |
2017-06-20
|
13 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-28
|
12 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-12.txt |
2017-04-28
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-04-28
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Mach Chen , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Mach Chen , Clarence Filsfils |
2017-04-28
|
12 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-16
|
11 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ravi Singh. |
2017-03-27
|
11 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh |
2017-03-27
|
11 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh |
2017-03-21
|
11 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-03-13
|
11 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-11.txt |
2017-03-13
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-13
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Mach Chen , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Mach Chen , Clarence Filsfils |
2017-03-13
|
11 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-09
|
10 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-10.txt |
2017-03-09
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-09
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Mach Chen , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Jie Dong , Mach Chen , Clarence Filsfils |
2017-03-09
|
10 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-16
|
09 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-09.txt |
2017-02-16
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-16
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Clarence Filsfils" , idr-chairs@ietf.org, "Keyur Patel" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Jie Dong" |
2017-02-16
|
09 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-08.txt |
2017-02-15
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-15
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , idr-chairs@ietf.org, "Clarence Filsfils" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Saikat Ray" , "Jie Dong" |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-15
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com.> |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Susan Hares | Need implementations to progress. Sue |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-02-09
|
07 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-07.txt |
2017-02-09
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-09
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Saikat Ray" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Keyur Patel" , idr-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Saikat Ray" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Keyur Patel" , idr-chairs@ietf.org, "Jie Dong" |
2017-02-09
|
07 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-13
|
06 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-06.txt |
2016-11-13
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-13
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Saikat Ray" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Keyur Patel" , idr-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Mach Chen" , "Saikat Ray" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Keyur Patel" , idr-chairs@ietf.org, "Jie Dong" |
2016-11-13
|
06 | Stefano Previdi | Uploaded new revision |
2016-05-12
|
05 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-05.txt |
2016-05-12
|
04 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-04.txt |
2016-03-21
|
03 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-03.txt |
2015-12-21
|
02 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-02.txt |
2015-12-03
|
01 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-01.txt |
2015-12-02
|
Naveen Khan | Posted related IPR disclosure: Google Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe and draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe | |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-06-24
|
00 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe instead of None |
2015-06-17
|
00 | Stefano Previdi | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-00.txt |