Shepherd writeup
rfc8571-18

Template version: RFC 4858,  2/24/2012 

Status: 1) At Routing AD review
              2) secdir review issues  see thread: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19953.html

=======================
(1)  Type
Type: Proposed standard
is it listed on front page: yes 

(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 defines new BGP-LS TLVs to carry the 
information IGP  carry for traffic engineering extensions. 
The traffic engineering extensions are defined by IS-IS and 
OSPF. 

Working Group Summary
 
This draft received moderate support (10+ people) on the 
idr mail list. This draft is linked to OSPF/ISIS drafts. 

Document Quality
  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  
2 implementations from Cisco and Huawei: 
(See IDR Wiki with report)
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp%20implementations


Personnel
  Document Shepherd?  Susan Hares
  Area Director: Alvaro Retana

(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 the draft for text against the text in RFC7810 (ISIS),  draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis, 
and RFC7471.    Reviewed NITS.   Queried authors on implementations. 

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

Normal Directorate reviews should be done (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR). 
Please note that the security considerations state that the announcement of the 
traffic engineering information does not have any other security issues over normal BGP. 
The drasft also states that it is assumed that the IGPs this BGP-LS informaion have 
"all the required secuirty and authentication mechnaisms (as describe din [RFC7810] and
[RFC7471] in order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. 

The authors feel this coveres the security  traffic engineering 
information from an IGP  and the WG did not complain. 
One particular author (Les Ginsberg) did not feel a revision of the 
security considerations section. 

The early  sec-dir early review found problems found nits
and was concerned regarding the vagueness of the RFC7752 
security section.  Please see this discussion thread:  
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg19953.html

Explanation for the IESG:
The shepherd disagreed with the authors on the quality of the 
security consideration's section in draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.
One of the authors (Les Ginsberg) felt the  shepherd/WG chair 
suggestion to revise the security consideratinos section was 
unreasonable.  The resolution was to have an independent secdir review of this 
draft that focused specifically on the security considerations. 

Technical reasons behind the debate on draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp: 
Les Ginsberg feels that the RFC7752 security considerations 
are sufficient to secure this information.   Both this shepherd and 
the secdir reviewer have concerns regarding the vagueness in 
the RFC7752 security considerations.   The RFC7752 security section does not 
provide a restriction of this information to a trusted domain or 
to isolated peers. The RFC7752 security section is vague. 
The segment routing (SR) architecture (RFC8402) restricts 
the default deployment of SR to a trusted domain. 
The following BGP drafts for segment routing: 
- draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-17 
- draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-10 
include the restrictiontion to a trusted domain with 
specific BGP peer isolation. 

The shepherd is hopeful that the Security Area ADs 
and the secdir reviewer (Yoav Nir) will be able to make progress with
Les Ginsberg on  The shepherd respectfully suggests that Alvaro Retana 
(Routing AD) and  the Security ADs (Benjamin Kaduk) continue to 
support Yoav Nir in his discussion with regarding this matter. 

(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.

These are BGP-LS TLVs.  See comments in #4. 

(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?  

This set of BGP-LS TLVs is just one of the groups of BGP-LS TLVs. 

(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.

Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>
IPR statement: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4A4-ryLUKBO2-2if9xByH4sTIYE

S. Previdi 
stefano previdi <stefano@previdi.net>
IPR statement: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3ko5DPmF-s5p4lS5HC-iK5mZD3I

Qin Wu: 
IPR statement: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ctEXG9kRUmIJXo_PwQT5SVcfmHE

Jeff Tantsura
Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
IPR: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Gi0YQFwCa5ox8LMsrCCDXeJ4xCM

C. Filsfils:
IPR: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KZZnxmvmFB58JTs58YoCVswPVP0

John notes that he has posted previously.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/za0XkxCk-BGO496bMXnmGIWwW6U

(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 disclosed.

(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?   

Medium support 10-15 people. 

(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 or problems pending. 

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits. 

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

No other formal review. 

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

Yes - all references are 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?

All Normative references are at RFC level. 

(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?  

No changes to existing document.  

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

The IANA considerations sections asks for allocation of code points from the 
"BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" 
registry.  These code points were assigned via early allocation. 

(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 new registries. 

(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 needed
Back