Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from idr-chairs@ietf.org, mach@huawei.com, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-12
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-10-08
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-10-08
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-09-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-09-01
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2015-09-01
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2015-09-01
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-08-31
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2015-08-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-08-21
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-08-21
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-08-21
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-08-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-08-13
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed |
2015-08-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-08-06
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-08-05
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-08-05
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-08-05
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-08-05
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-08-04
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-08-03
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-08-03
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-08-03
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Could you expand two acronyms in the introduction, VRF and NLRI? Thank you! |
2015-08-03
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-08-03
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-08-01
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-07-31
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-07-30
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-07-30
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-07-30
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-07-29
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-07-28
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-07-27
|
05 | Jeffrey Haas | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-07-27
|
05 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-05.txt |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-07-24
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-07-23
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-07-23
|
04 | Pearl Liang | (IANA COMMENTS) IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions … (IANA COMMENTS) IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. 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 of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ the entry for value 0x08 is to be updated as follows: Sub-Type Value: 0x08 Name: Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format. Reference: [ RFC5575, RFC-to-be ] Date: [ TBD-at-registration ] Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ two new community types are to be registered as follows: Type Value: 0x81 Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Date: [ TBD-at-registration ] Type Value: 0x82 Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Date: [ TBD-at-registration ] Third, a new registry is to be created called the Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types registry. The registry is to be a subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ The registry will contain the following note: "This registry contains values of the second octet (the "Sub-Type" field) of an extended community when the value of the first octet (the "Type" field) is 0x81." The registation rules for the new registry is as follows (as defined in RFC5226): RANGE REGISTRATION PROCEDURE 0x00-0xBF First Come First Served 0xC0-0xFF IETF Review There are initial registrations and reservation in the new registry as follows: SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME REFERENCE ------------------+--------------------------------+------------------- 0x00-0x07 Unassigned 0x08 Flow spec redirect IPv4 format. [ RFC-to-be ] 0x09-0xff Unassigned Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types registry. The registry is to be a subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities regsitry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ The registry will contain the following note: "This registry contains values of the second octet (the "Sub-Type" field) of an extended community when the value of the first octet (the "Type" field) is 0x82." The registration rules for the new registry are as follows (as defined in RFC 5226): RANGE REGISTRATION PROCEDURE 0x00-0xBF First Come First Served 0xC0-0xFF IETF Review There are initial registrations and reservation in the new registry as follows: SUB-TYPE VALUE NAME REFERENCE ------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------- 0x00-0x07 Unassigned 0x08 Flow spec redirect AS-4byte format. [RFC-to-be] 0x09-0xff Unassigned IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. NOTE: IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. |
2015-07-23
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-07-10
|
04 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to consider the following document: - 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community' 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 2015-07-23. 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 updates RFC 5575 (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules) to clarify the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-06 |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-07-09
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to idr-chairs@ietf.org, mach@huawei.com, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis@ietf.org from idr-chairs@ietf.org, mach@huawei.com |
2015-06-25
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2015-06-24
|
04 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-06-24
|
04 | Susan Hares | Summary: Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review Document status: Proposed standard AD: Alia Atlas WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares Shepherd: Mach Chen RTR-QA … Summary: Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review Document status: Proposed standard AD: Alia Atlas WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares Shepherd: Mach Chen RTR-QA review: Nabil Bitar (ok 10/25) IANA-QA review: (11/25/25) , but waiting for secondary review (6/24) Security review: (4/8/2015): Alexey Melnkov (alexey.melnkov@isode.com) - OK OPS-DIR QA review: Requested 11/25/2014- Carlos Pignataro (OK) Gen Art final review: Brian Carpenter (4/11/2015) - Reviewed and comments addressed. IPR Call: 8/12 - 8/19 - had WG consensus Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13534.html Shepherd's review: ------------------ (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575 (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules). Working Group Summary The draft intends to address a BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community registry issue, it's simple and straightforward. There are good supports from the WG to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality The draft has been reviewed by several IDR WG experts, it also passed the RTG QA review. All comments received so far have been solved. Personnel Document Shepherd: Mach Chen Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the draft and raised some editoral comments that also have been solved in the latest version. After the review, the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the draft and it is ready for publishment. (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. None. (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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec. No WG issues as seen in mail thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13533.html (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? There is good consensus from the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarizes 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. One nit remains: Missing Reference: 'RFC 5575' is mentioned on line 111, but not defined. This is due to the spare space between "RFC" and "5575". (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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. Yes, this document intends to update RFC5575 and it is listed in the Abstract and Introduction. (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). The IANA Considerations section is correct and consistent with the body of the document. (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. (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. Not applicable. |
2015-06-24
|
04 | Susan Hares | Summary: Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review Document status: Proposed standard AD: Alia Atlas WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares Shepherd: Mach Chen RTR-QA … Summary: Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review Document status: Proposed standard AD: Alia Atlas WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares Shepherd: Mach Chen RTR-QA review: Nabil Bitar (ok 10/25) IANA-QA review: (11/25/25) , but waiting for secondary review (6/24) Security review: (4/8/2015): Alexey Melnkov (alexey.melnkov@isode.com) - OK OPS-DIR QA review: Requested 11/25/2014- Carlos Pignataro (OK) Gen Art final review: Brian Carpenter (4/11/2015) - Reviewed and comments addressed. IPR Call: 8/12 - 8/19 - had WG consensus Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13534.html Shepherd's review: ------------------ (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575 (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules). Working Group Summary The draft intends to address a BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community registry issue, it's simple and straightforward. There are good supports from the WG to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality The draft has been reviewed by several IDR WG experts, it also passed the RTG QA review. All comments received so far have been solved. Personnel Document Shepherd: Mach Chen Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the draft and raised some editoral comments that also have been solved in the latest version. After the review, the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the draft and it is ready for publishment. (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. None. (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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec. No WG issues as seen in mail thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13533.html (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? There is good consensus from the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarizes 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. One nit remains: Missing Reference: 'RFC 5575' is mentioned on line 111, but not defined. This is due to the spare space between "RFC" and "5575". (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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. Yes, this document intends to update RFC5575 and it is listed in the Abstract and Introduction. (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). The IANA Considerations section is correct and consistent with the body of the document. (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. (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. Not applicable. |
2015-06-14
|
04 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-05-01
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-05-01
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-04-19
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2015-04-11
|
04 | Jeffrey Haas | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-04-11
|
04 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-04.txt |
2015-04-09
|
03 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-haas-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis instead of None |
2015-04-09
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2015-04-08
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-04-07
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-04-07
|
03 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03. 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-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA has several questions about some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA is required to complete. First, in the Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ the existing registration for Type Value 0x08 will have its name updated from: Flow spec redirect to: Flow spec redirect AS-2byte format and have the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. QUESTION: This draft indicates that it updates RFC5575 according to the header information in the draft. Is the author intended to remove the existing defining reference from the registry? Second, in the BGP Transitive Extended Community Types subregistry also in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ two new registrations will be added as follows: Type Value: 0x81 Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" Registry) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Type Value: 0x82 Name: Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 (Sub-Types are defined in the "Generic Transitive Experimental Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" Registry) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Third, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 2 Sub-Types" registry. IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained? In the same BGP Extended Communities located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities registry? IANA QUESTION -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry. QUESTION: What is the range for this new Part 2 Sub-Types registry? QUESTION: Is the author intended to use the same table format as the existing sub-registry "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" which has the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and (Registration) Date? IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows: Type Value: 0x08 Name: Flow spec redirect IPv4 format Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Part 3 Sub-Types" registry. IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained? IANA QUESTION -> What rules should be used for maintenance of this new registry? Please refer to RFC 5226 for guidance on how to select and apply maintenance policy for a new registry. QUESTION: What is the range for this new Part 3 Sub-Types registry? QUESTION: Is the author intended to use the same table format as the existing sub-registry "Generic Transitive Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types" which has the following columns: Sub-Type Value, Name, Reference, and (Registration) Date? IANA understands that there is a single initial registration in the new registry as follows: Type Value: 0x08 Name: FFlow spec redirect AS-4byte format Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. |
2015-03-25
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2015-03-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2015-03-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2015-03-23
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Dan Romascanu was rejected |
2015-03-21
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2015-03-21
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2015-03-21
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-03-19
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-03-19
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-03-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-03-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to consider the following document: - 'Clarification of the Flowspec Redirect Extended Community' 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 2015-04-08. 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 clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575 (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules). The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | To end April 8 |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-03-18
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | Summary: Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review Document status: Proposed standard AD: Alia Atlas WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares Shepherd: Mach Chen RTR-QA … Summary: Write-up status: Awaiting IANA Early Review Document status: Proposed standard AD: Alia Atlas WG Chairs: John Scudder and Susan Hares Shepherd: Mach Chen RTR-QA review: Nabil Bitar (ok 10/25) IANA-QA review: (11/25/25) (No response) OPS-DIR QA review: Requested 11/25/2014 (bo response) Gen Art final review: Requested 11/25/2014 (no Response) IPR Call: 8/12 - 8/19 - had WG consensus Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13534.html Shepherd's review: ------------------ (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document clarifies the formatting of the the BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community, originally documented in RFC 5575 (Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules). Working Group Summary The draft intends to address a BGP Flowspec Redirect Extended Community registry issue, it's simple and straightforward. There are good supports from the WG to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. Document Quality The draft has been reviewed by several IDR WG experts, it also passed the RTG QA review. All comments received so far have been solved. Personnel Document Shepherd: Mach Chen Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has reviewed the draft and raised some editoral comments that also have been solved in the latest version. After the review, the Document Shepherd thinks that there is no outstanding issue with the draft and it is ready for publishment. (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. None. (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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Statement by Jeff Haas: As seen in RFC 5575, Juniper has IPR on Flowspec. No WG issues as seen in mail thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg13533.html (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? There is good consensus from the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarizes 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. One nit remains: Missing Reference: 'RFC 5575' is mentioned on line 111, but not defined. This is due to the spare space between "RFC" and "5575". (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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. Yes, this document intends to update RFC5575 and it is listed in the Abstract and Introduction. (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). The IANA Considerations section is correct and consistent with the body of the document. (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. (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. Not applicable. |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | State Change Notice email list changed to idr@ietf.org, idr-chairs@tools.ietf.org, mach@huawei.com, draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis.all@tools.ietf.org |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2015-02-02
|
03 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2014-11-24
|
03 | Susan Hares | Waiting for early review of IANA |
2014-11-24
|
03 | Susan Hares | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2014-11-24
|
03 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2014-11-24
|
03 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-03.txt |
2014-11-12
|
02 | Susan Hares | Write-up needed to resolve nit. Pending IANA QA review. |
2014-11-12
|
02 | Susan Hares | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2014-11-12
|
02 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-11-12
|
02 | Susan Hares | Changed document writeup |
2014-11-04
|
02 | Mach Chen | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-24
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-02.txt |
2014-10-20
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-01.txt |
2014-09-08
|
00 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Nabil Bitar. |
2014-08-29
|
00 | Jonathan Hardwick | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2014-08-27
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Mach Chen |
2014-08-26
|
00 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-08-26
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2014-04-21
|
00 | John Scudder | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-04-01
|
00 | Jeffrey Haas | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-rt-bis-00.txt |