BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space
draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis-07

[Ballot discuss]
Given the following in s6:

  This section provides an update to RFC 4271 [RFC4271] with respect to
  the error conditions noted here and their handling.

Why doesn't this draft also indicate that it's updating RFC 4271?

[Ballot comment]
From Catherine Meadow's secdir review:

s9: It's not clear to me what the status of "misconfiguration" is in the hierarchy of IETF.
Is it more like SHALL NOT or SHOULD NOT?  Is there a reason why you're saying
"misconfiguration" instead of one of those?

[Ballot comment]
I'm happy to support this document. I am in agreement with Barry that Appendix A is a disappointment. I think it would be helpful to boost this section with some more details.

[Ballot comment]
It's always helpful, when reviewing a "bis" document, to have a summary of changes.  So I was happy to see this, at the end of the Introduction:

  This document obsoletes RFC 4893, and a comparison with RFC 4893 is
  provided in Appendix A.

Imagine my dismay, then, when I trotted down to Appendix A and found that it has but one, low-content sentence:

  This document includes several clarifications and editorial changes,
  and specifies the error handling for the new attributes.

If that's all you had to say, you should have just put it into the Introduction in the first place.  Grumble.

Happily, there's DIFF.  :-)

And no, don't bother changing it now.  No objection, really, in any case.  Just me being slightly grumpy.

[Ballot comment]
I would like to see the addition of section on the "manageability impact" of this change.
Actually, the news are good in this case.

1.  BGP-4 MIB module. This is taken care of (as far as I can tell), because the TC took care of the

InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "d"
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents an autonomous system number that identifies an
        Autonomous System (AS).  An AS is a set of routers under a
        single technical administration, using an interior gateway
        protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS,
        and using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to
        other ASes'.  IANA maintains the AS number space and has
        delegated large parts to the regional registries.

        Autonomous system numbers are currently limited to 16 bits
        (0..65535).  There is, however, work in progress to enlarge the
        autonomous system number space to 32 bits.  Therefore, this
        textual convention uses an Unsigned32 value without a
        range restriction in order to support a larger autonomous
        system number space."
    REFERENCE  "RFC 1771, RFC 1930"
    SYNTAX      Unsigned32

Note: not sure many people are actually using this MIB module, but that's behind the point.

2. IPFIX. This is taken care of, as http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml defines the max length.
( See bgpSourceAsNumber and bgpDestinationAsNumber ), and the Template Record defines the length, so 2 or 4 bytes.

3. YANG. I don't believe there is anything BGP YANG module.

Regards, Benoit.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four
IANA Actions which must be completed.

First, in the IANA matrix located at:

http://www.iana.org/protocols/

the reference for 32-bit Autonomous System Numbers under Autonomous System (AS)
Numbers will be updated to the new [ RFC-to-be ]. References inside:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml

will also be updated to the new [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, a BGP Capability code to indicate that a BGP speaker supports the
four-octet AS numbers. IANA confirms that the Capability Code 65 has been
assigned in:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/capability-codes.xml

Third, IANA confirms that two BGP optional transitive attributes, and their type
codes, have been assigned. AS4_PATH and AS4_AGGREGATOR are assigned in:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xml

Fourth, IANA confirms that a reserved two-octet AS number -- 23456 -- for
AS_TRANS has been assigned in:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml

IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed
upon approval of this document.
AS_TRANS. The AS number 23456 has been assigned by the IANA for
AS_TRANS.

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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document:
- 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space'
  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 2012-06-15. 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


  The Autonomous System (AS) number is encoded as a two-octet entity in
  the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP
  to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities.  This
  document obsoletes RFC 4893.





The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Writeup

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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.

Insofar as the draft is a replacement for a PS RFC, it should be pretty
obvious, though I can go into this at more length should there be any
doubt.

(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

  The Autonomous System (AS) number is encoded as a two-octet entity in
  the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP
  to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities.

  The primary difference between RFC 4893 and this draft is the
  introduction of a detailed Error Handling section. Several other
  requirements are also clarified or added.

Working Group Summary

  One working group member, John Leslie, contributed a detailed review
  of the draft which suggested extensive changes in terminology. The
  authors disagreed as to the need for the changes. When the chairs put
  the question to the WG directly, there was no support for pushing
  forward with the changes, and some opposition.
 
Document Quality

  The protocol (extension) has been implemented and fielded
  for years and it is generally considered to be a requirement
  for a serious BGP implementation. See also above.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is John Scudder.
  The Responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.

(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.

Review included a careful read-through and several rounds of iteration
with the authors, which were completed satisfactorily.

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

No. The document has been discussed to death.

(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.

N/A.

(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.

It is probable that the document could be of Even Higher Quality in
terms of prose, terminology, definitions and so on. However, the fact
that multiple implementations exist and are in use suggests that the
document is good enough as written and that further expenditure of
energy on polishing isn't warranted. See also The WG summary above.

(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.

(By the way, the sentence in the questionnaire is missing its
question mark.)

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

N/A

(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? 

Consensus is good. As discussed above there was some disagreement
about terminology but in later private discussion with the WG
member he agreed to proceed.

(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.)

N/A

(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.

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.

N/A

(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, yes, N/A and N/A respectively.

(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).

Confirmed for all.

(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.

None.

(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.

N/A