Skip to main content

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