Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-19

[Ballot comment]
Section 4

[Roman already covered the question about what the "required security"
from 7308 is, so I won't duplicate that]

        The advertisement of the link attribute information defined
  in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that
  associated with the existing link attribute information already
  supported in [RFC7752].

This seems like the key point to make in this section, and might be
promoted to appear first.

I do think there is some additional risk (perhaps not significant,
though) in going from original AG to EAG, mostly in the form of the
repeated information in the first 32 bits and risk of skew between them.
It seems that the IESG comments on RFC 7038
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7308/ballot/) included some useful
suggestions for security considerations, but they were not acted on at
that time.  We could still choose to incorporate them now, since the
considerations are basically identical for BGP-LS as for the IGPs that
7038 covered.

[Ballot comment]
Per Section 4 (Security Considerations),

It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV
  will support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in
  order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into
  BGP-LS.

The Security Considerations (Section 3) of RFC7308 reads "This extension adds no new security considerations."  What guidance is this sentence providing?

[Ballot discuss]
Hi,

Thanks for this short doc, and sorry for the discuss, but hopefully it is fairly easy to resolve ...

I think that it would be helpful for this document to explicitly state how this attribute behaves in conjunction with the existing Administrative Group (color) TLV (1088).  E.g., is the expectation that if this attribute is published then the 1088 attribute would also always be published (with the same first 32 bits)?  Or is the expectation that this attribute can be published without the 1088 attribute being published at all?

Similarly, if a client receives both attributes there are there any expectations to how it handles those, i.e., should it always use the new attribute in preference?  Or otherwise, what should it do if the values were inconsistent between the two attributes?

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools, so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need
to let me know what you did with these suggestions.

"Abstract", paragraph 1, nit:
>    Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic

"advertised used" - pick one?

Section 2, paragraph 2, nit:
-    This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to
+    This document defines an extension that enables BGP-LS speakers to
+                                                  +

"D", paragraph 4, nit:
> s an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended administrative groups
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean
"advertisement for"?

Section 1, paragraph 2, nit:
>  OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non- e
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean
"advertisement for"?

Section 1, paragraph 3, nit:
> fies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of the extended administrative
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean
"advertisement for"?

Section 4, paragraph 2, nit:
> g the TLVs into BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean
"advertisement for"?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the document.

Please find below some non-blocking comments.

Regards

-éric

-- Abstract --
I cannot parse/understand " attributes advertised used "


-- Section 2 --
"TLV MUST be considered malformed" but then what actions need to be taken ? Ignored (I guess) ?

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 

Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) Discuss the error handling in depth with IDR participants.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate within RFC7752 error handling.

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  Authors provided -13 for all changes except the security revision.
  The AD and security reviews will inform authors and shepherd whether
  the security section is sufficient.

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    IDR and AD had general concerns over RFC7752
    error handling.  This examination is par of
    multiple year effort to improve
    IDR error handling and security sections.

    Since all BGP-LS drafts share the error handling
    the RFC7752bis contains this wisdom.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate
    within RFC7752 error handling.

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  Authors provided -13 for all changes except the security revision.
  The AD and security reviews will inform authors and shepherd whether
  the security section is sufficient.

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear and short document! Below are a couple minor editorial comments.

1. Abstract

  Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic

Advertised, or used, pick one. (Probably keep used and delete advertised.)

2. Section 2

  This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to

s/enable/enables/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs 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 allocation for:

TLV Code Point: 1173
Description: Extended Administrative Group
IS-IS TLV/Sub TLV: 22/14

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-05-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Susan Hares , aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups using BGP-LS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Distribution of Traffic Engineering
Extended Administrative Groups
  using BGP-LS'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-05-03. 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


  Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic
  engineering.  This document defines an extension to BGP-LS for
  advertisement of extended administrative groups (EAGs).




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution/



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

Prior to submission: 
==============
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    IDR and AD had general concerns over RFC7752
    error handling.  This examination is par of
    multiple year effort to improve
    IDR error handling and security sections.

    Since all BGP-LS drafts share the error handling
    the RFC7752bis contains this wisdom.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate
    within RFC7752 error handling.  Implementers who
    combine this with other BGP-LS functions for
    may ned RFC7752bis.   

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  Authors provided -13 for all changes except the security revision.
  The AD and security reviews will inform authors and shepherd whether
  the security section is sufficient.

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

Prior to submission: 
==============
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    IDR and AD had general concerns over RFC7752
    error handling.  This examination is par of
    multiple year effort to improve
    IDR error handling and security sections.

    Since all BGP-LS drafts share the error handling
    the RFC7752bis contains this wisdom.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate
    within RFC7752 error handling.  Implementers who
    combine this with other BGP-LS functions for
    may ned RFC7752bis.   

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  Authors provided -13 for all changes except the security revision.
  The AD and security reviews will inform authors and shepherd whether
  the security section is sufficient.

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

Prior to submission: 
==============
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    IDR and AD had general concerns over RFC7752
    error handling.  This examination is par of
    multiple year effort to improve
    IDR error handling and security sections.

    Since all BGP-LS drafts share the error handling
    the RFC7752bis contains this wisdom.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate
    within RFC7752 error handling.  Implementers who
    combine this with other BGP-LS functions for
    may ned RFC7752bis.   

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  Authors provided -13 for all changes except the security revision.
  The AD and security reviews will inform authors and shepherd whether
  the security section is sufficient.

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

Prior to submission:  2 required (section 2 length, security)

==============
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    IDR and AD had general concerns over RFC7752
    error handling.  This examination is par of
    multiple year effort to improve
    IDR error handling and security sections.

    Since all BGP-LS drafts share the error handling
    the RFC7752bis contains this wisdom.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate
    within RFC7752 error handling.  Implementers who
    combine this with other BGP-LS functions for
    may ned RFC7752bis.   

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  [remove after resolution]

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

Prior to submission:  2 required (section 2 length, security)

Authors: consider revising the abstract to be shorter
Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
  "colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
  (e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
  groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
  these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
  Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
  a variable length administrative group. 

  This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisement of the
  Extended administrative groups./

==============
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up

Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes (commonly referred to as
"colors" or link colors") advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initially defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR early call:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    IDR and AD had general concerns over RFC7752
    error handling.  This examination is par of
    multiple year effort to improve
    IDR error handling and security sections.

    Since all BGP-LS drafts share the error handling
    the RFC7752bis contains this wisdom.
    This draft addition is fairly simple so it can operate
    within RFC7752 error handling.  Implementers who
    combine this with other BGP-LS functions for
    may ned RFC7752bis.   

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0DhNNKHRayYawQQ8QYwud9wOim0/
  [remove after resolution]

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

No.   

(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.

No.

(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.

(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?

Zitao Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JSisgLXWW_2gKvPECoLsLHNCb6c/

Qin Wu:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5yAJPzo_UWZbUIl9aVlRrH8w3cw/

Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vShcMd_UepQ4L3xcmSh6XRaBowc/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Xk2be_P4S3c7cPo8SsZlQCfTMA0/

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No 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?

Solid. This is seen as BGP-LS needed addition.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.  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 document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

Early allocation have been approved from the registry by WG and AD
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLV"

Value matches the the assigned value at:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registry.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

No automated checks.

(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?

Not a yang module.

Prior to submission:
Authors: consider revising the

Administrative Groups are link attributes advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initial defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

==============
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 
Proposed standard

Why PS? The document provides a new Link Attribute TLV
feature for BGP-LS [RFC5575]. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up


Technical Summary:

Administrative Groups are link attributes advertised by link state protocols
(e.g. ISIS or OSPF) and used for traffic engineering.  These administrative
groups were initial defined as 32 bit masks.  As network usage grew,
these 32 bit masks were found to constrain traffic engineering. 
Therefore, link state protocols (ISIS, OSPF) were expanded to advertise
a variable length administrative group.

This document defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisements of
the extended adminstrative group. 

Working Group Summary:

The consensus on passing the adminstrative groups was 
solid since this feature has already been developed in
RFC7308.   

Document Quality:

Existing implementations:  2 from Cisco
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution%20implementations

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

This is a BGP-LS feature so the potential implemeters are BGP-LS
vendors providing Traffic Engineering. 


Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director:  Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.

1) read through document
2) held until we had RFC7752bis in the standard track

    The better way to address the error handling needs is to
    upgrade the RFC7752 as the IDR WG is doing.

3) Suggested editorial changes
    [11/12/2020]

If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

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

No.   

(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.

(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?

(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.

(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? 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.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

(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.

(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.

(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?