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
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
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
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
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
Authors: Eric C. Rosen (Cisco)
Yakov Rekhter (juniper)
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
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.
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.
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
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares (IDR co-chair)
AD: Stewart Bryant
3) document review by 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
(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
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
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?
(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 (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.