Shepherd writeup
rfc7752-13

Status: draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-12 resolves ADs comments  

AD: Alia Atlas
WG chairs: Susan Hares, John Scudder
Shepherd: Jie Dong 
QA Reviewer in RTG-DIR: Acee Linden [OK] 
QA Reviewer in OPS-DIR: Ron Bonica [ok] 
IANA review: Early QA REview done (3/14/2014, 10/30, 2014, 1/24/2015) 

Implementation report: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-impl/

 Specification of code points is stable with the implementation report
 for juniper and cisco's implementation (2 per IDR WG requirements). 

=========

1) RFC requested: Proposed Standard

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

Technical Summary

   In a number of environments, a component external to a network is
   called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and
   current state of the connections within the network, including
   traffic engineering information.  This is information typically
   distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network. 
   This document describes a mechanism by which links state and traffic
   engineering information can be collected from networks and shared
   with external components using the BGP routing protocol.  This is
   achieved using a new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information
   (NLRI) encoding format.  The mechanism is applicable to physical and
   virtual IGP links.  The mechanism described is subject to policy
   control.  Applications of this technique include Application Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO) servers, and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
 .

Working Group Summary

IDR has reviewed and discussed his document over 3 years (2011-2014), 
and the WG LCs for early adoption occurred in Fall 2013, and from 1/16-1/27/2014. 
WG has reached consensus due to strong implementation experience. 

Document Quality

IDR has reviewed and discussed his document over 3 years (2011-2014), 
and the protocol has the two implementations that the IDR WG requires
for standardization of BGP protocol features.  The two implementations are reported
in the document: draft-gredler-idr-ls-distribution-impl-00.pdf.

Review timeline:

A WG LC for this draft on 3/12-3/26/14.  
 
Personnel: 
Document Shepherd for early assignment review: Susan Hares
Responsible AD: Alia Atlas 
 Shepherd: Jie Dong 
QA Reviewer in RTG-DIR: Acee Linden [OK] 
QA Reviewer in OPS-DIR: Ron Bonica [ok] 
IANA review: Early QA REview done (3/14/2014, 10/30, 2014, 1/24/2015) 

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

Draft was given early allocation per RFC 7120.
Shepherd and WG-Chair have reviewed draft in versions. 
draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-012 was reviewed by WG-Chair due to
 document shepherd leave for arrival of new baby. 

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

No. 

Operational deployments and discussion on list have found issues that have been
fixed.  QA reviews have been done by IANA, OPS-DIR, and RTG-Directorate. 
Multiple versions have been reviewed. 
Implementation have been fielded to customers. 

(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?

This draft is the first of the wave of BGP drafts that consider putting extra information 
into the BGP infrastructure of some portions of the network to supply new
service routing, or SDN-based calculations. If you have concerns about
BGP carrying this data, you should review this carefully.  However,
early interoperability testing, deployments, and results have convinced the
IDR WG.   (The WG chairs started out skeptical and has been convinced by
running code and operational experience. ) 

(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? 

The document shepherd feels comfortable with all sections and the text 
within the document. 

(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

IPR disclosed by Juniper.  The list 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1864/

Authors: 
Hannes Gredler disclosure: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YQLjkJmmgxsj4iW9q82h1bpL0eg

Jan Medved disclosure: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Yb4Ynk3a3Gwmp5qm1misrWiMqR0

Saikat Ray 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/j4UCoWu8Lsflg3HpfkITyDeH9Xc

Adrian Farrel:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YBRkdNC_exsgQjTS1hHd0E3_5LA

Stefano Previdi 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/W9MnDKZr-JmzPdzdPWPTVNLh4-w

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

Private Email has been sent to each author (3/4/14). 
During WG LC, a public IPR public call will be sent (3/13 - 3/26) 

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?   

Strong wide-spread consensus based on vendor implementations, early deployments,
and key responses. 

(10) appeals and discontent: not seen

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document.  

No nits found. 

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not relevant for MIB Doctor, Media type, or URI. 

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

 Yes. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? No 


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

IANA - requests: 
New AFI/SAFI - early allocation requested by this report 
New BGP path attribute - under RFC 7120 this should occur.

New Registry for BGP LS node anchor, link descriptor, and link attribute TLVs
   0-255 are reserved
  256-65535 - code points 
  (table 11 in document) 

This new will need designated expert to be assigned by IESG (per RFC 5226) 

(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.

New Registry for BGP LS node anchor, link descriptor, and link attribute TLVs
   0-255 are reserved
  256-65535 - code points 
  (table 11 in document) 

This new will need designated expert to be assigned by IESG (per RFC 5226) 

(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 self-check required for XML, BNF, MIB definitions. 

Back