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.