IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities
draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-03-13
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2014-03-13
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-03-07
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-02-24
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-02-14
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-01-31
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-01-31
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-01-23
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-01-17
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-15
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-01-14
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-01-14
|
02 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-01-14
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-01-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-01-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-01-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-01-13
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-09
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-09
|
02 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-01-09
|
02 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-01-08
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-01-08
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-01-08
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] This document was a pleasure to review. Thanks for your efforts. |
2014-01-08
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-08
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-07
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-01-06
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-01-06
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-01-06
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-01-05
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-01-02
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-01-02
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-12-30
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] A remarkably clear document, thank you. I would note that per draft-cotton-rfc4020bis it will no longer be necessary to explicitly mark Standards Action … [Ballot comment] A remarkably clear document, thank you. I would note that per draft-cotton-rfc4020bis it will no longer be necessary to explicitly mark Standards Action registries as supporting early allocation. However, 4020bis is not yet an RFC, and IANA can sort that small issue out as the two documents proceed. |
2013-12-30
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-30
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-24
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2013-12-19
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. |
2013-12-16
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-16
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-09 |
2013-12-16
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
2013-12-16
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-16
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-16
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-04
|
02 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-04
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-02.txt |
2013-11-29
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | To put into the text the resolution of the IANA issues |
2013-11-29
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2013-11-27
|
01 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-11-27) |
2013-11-25
|
01 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-01. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-01. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval, this document completely replaces and reorganizes the existing IANA Registries for the type values and sub-type values of BGP Extended Communities attribute and the BGP IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Communities attribute. The existing registries are located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ Upon approval of this document, IANA will use the instructions in section 5 of the current document to implement the changes requested by the authors. IANA understands that Section 5 documents the full list of IANA actions required 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2013-11-11
|
01 | John Scudder | This document now replaces draft-rosen-idr-extcomm-iana instead of None |
2013-11-11
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2013-11-11
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2013-10-31
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-10-31
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2013-10-31
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2013-10-31
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IANA Registries for BGP Extended … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to consider the following document: - 'IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities' 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 2013-11-27. 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 This document reorganizes the IANA Registries for the type values and sub-type values of BGP Extended Communities attribute and the BGP IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Communities attribute. This is done in order to remove inter-dependencies among the registries, thus making it easier for IANA to determine which codepoints are available for assignment in which registries. This document also clarifies the information that must be provided to IANA when requesting an allocation from one or more of these registries. These changes are compatible with the existing allocations, and thus do not affect protocol implementations. The changes will however impact the "IANA Considerations" sections of future protocol specifications. This document updates RFCs 4360 and 5701. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | Last call was requested |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-10-30
|
01 | Stewart Bryant | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-09-30
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-01.txt |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | As part of an experiment for a shorter write-up, this document uses the short write-up, But to provide comparison, it includes the longer write-up afterward … As part of an experiment for a shorter write-up, this document uses the short write-up, But to provide comparison, it includes the longer write-up afterward short write-up ------------------- 1. Summary Draft: draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana/ Location: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana/ The document shepherd is Susan Hares. The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant. This document reorganizes the IANA Registries for the type values and sub-type values of BGP Extended Communities attribute and the BGP IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Communities attribute. This updates RFC4360 and RFC5701. Why? To make method for assigning code points easier for IANA and clearer for other trying to request assignments. All changes are compatible with existing allocations, and not protocol implementations will need to be changed. Future IANA recommendations for BGP Extended community assignments will need to use the improved form. 2. Review and Consensus The most difficulty with this review was that it was a “no-brainer”. Everyone thought it was just going to be approved so no one complained or comments. A final week urging had to be done to get the appropriate implementors to review it. 3. Intellectual Property Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79. There are no IPR disclosures on the document. 4. Other Points Part A: IANA has been requested by the WG chair/Shepherd for an early review post WG LC. The review is part of the shepherd’s normal work, and will be updated as soon as it is received. This review occurred after the WG LC, but since the authors referenced Amanda Baber as aiding their draft it is suspected IANA’s comments will be minor. This draft does not alter the assignment of Cisco VPN distinguisher in IANA to Eric Rosen as an individual: - two octet AS (4/10/2012) [0x0010] - four octet AS (4/10/2012) [0x0210] - IPv4 address specific (4/10/2012) [0x0110] - IPv6 address specific (4/10/2012) [0x0010] ; the assignment to Yakov Rekhter opaque community (0x30D) for default gateway; and the assignment to Dhananjaya_Rao of the UUID-based Route Target --------- Part b: Comments from an implementer at Juniper may bring a bit of cheer to the faithful ADs. “As usual, I'm behind in my email. However, I strongly support the last call on this draft. The life of the extended communities feature has been somewhat muddled across its lifetime from original I-D to its RFC state. A significant portion of its lack of clarity has been the appearance, even though not actually stated in the draft or other I-Ds or RFCs that add related code points, that things are far more structured than they're really specified. Examples as a young BGP implementer had included presuming the transitivity bit is simply a bit rather than defining a separate code space. The same thing holds for the IANA bit. Additional points of confusion have tended to include the sub-type field which is effectively in many implementations a "format type", is shown that this is explicitly only so for specific types - and that it may be distinct depending on the I or T bits. Finally, the issues surrounding allocation policy were significantly tightened up as the original extended community drafts went from I-D to RFC, this document further normalizes the "experimental" space as having long lived code points in it, such as the RFC 5575 flowspec redirect-to-vrf community. In my opinion, this work is not only long overdue, but strongly necessary to help avoiding further semantic drift in the extended community registries and related accidentally incorrect implementations. Did I mention I support this document? :-) (And if you haven't chimed in but have a BGP implementation, you should do so as well.)” ================== Ok the long format must be inline: ============ Shepherd Report Form date: 2/24/2013 Draft: draft-ietf-idr-excomm-iana-00.txt Authors: Eric C. Rosen (Cisco) Yakov Rekhter (juniper) Date: 8/22/2013 WG LC: 8 type: RFC Standards track Type Qs: Status on title page. It is appropriate due to updating of standard RFCs. Updates RFCs: RFC4360, RFC5701 General Announcement: This document reorganizes the IANA Registries for the type values and sub-type values of BGP Extended Communities attribute and the BGP IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Communities attribute. This updates RFC4360 and RFC5701. Why? To make method for assigning code points easier for IANA, and clearer for other trying to request assignments. All changes are compatible with existing allocations, and not protocol implementations will need to be changed. Future IANA recommendations for BGP Extended community assignments will need to use the improved form. Technical Summary This document reorganizes the IANA Registries for the type values and sub-type values of BGP Extended Communities attribute and the BGP IPv6-Address-Specific Extended Communities attribute. This is done in order to remove inter-dependencies among the registries, thus making it easier for IANA to determine which code points are available for assignment in which registries. This document also clarifies the information that must be provided to IANA when requesting an allocation from one or more of these registries. These changes are compatible with the existing allocations, and thus do not affect protocol implementations. The changes will however impact the "IANA Considerations" sections of future protocol specifications. This document updates RFCs 4360 and 5701. Working Group Summary: Approvals were given all round by implementors and deployers. The only problem with a “no-brainer” request is that people forget to comment. Document Quality This is an IANA clean-up. please see the following comment regarding the rave review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg12398.html Personnel Document Shepherd: Susan Hares (IDR co-chair) AD: Stewart Bryant 3) document review by shepherd: Shepherd: A) Read document and list B) Ran nits and checked C) Sent not to IANA (in progress) (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. IANA is the key person. (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? IANA needs to know these reviews. OPS-DIR should make sure appropriate OPS people know. Early review request sent to OPS-DIR. (in progress). . (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? No. It is just should be published soon so IANA’s life gets easier. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg12398.html (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. Disclosure as been met, and authors queried. (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 Disclosure. (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? Mostly quiet as no-brainer, but some “please what’s there is broken” comments. (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 appeals, just yawns. (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. Nits were done. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. IANA Review (already requested), and OPS-DIR requested. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All normative. (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? All RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Yes, RFC 4360 and RFC 5701 in IANA Structure. (yeah!) (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). IANA considerations are the document. Shepherd reviewed IANA references, and the RFCs listing the drafts. (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. This is a redefinition of the IANA Registries. Since to define the IANA registries would be to re-write the draft here, please see the draft. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No automated checks are available. |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | WG Last Call has been Past. Write-up will follow shortly. |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | WG Last call has been completed |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2013-09-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-09-13
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2013-09-13
|
00 | Susan Hares | Last week of WG last call |
2013-09-13
|
00 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-08-22
|
00 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-00.txt |