IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute
draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02

[Ballot comment]
It woudl be good to add the clarification requested in the Gen-ART
  review by Miguel Garcia to the IANA Considerations.  Please see:

  http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02-garcia.txt

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Pasi's DISCUSS regarding optional transitive attributes. (We have unhappy operational experience that validates his concern.)

I recommend that we resolve the problem by inserting a normative reference to draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-01. While we could approve the current document today, we couldn't publish it until draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-01 is also published.

We should encourage the idr wr to expedite work on that draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-01.

[Ballot discuss]
[This discuss parallels one previously entered for draft-ietf-l3vpn-as4octet-ext-community]

The Security Considerations for this document need to be expanded.  The current text
states:

4. Security Considerations

  All the security considerations for BGP Extended Communities apply
  here.

I assume that the intent of this text was to point to RFC 4360, and originally intended
to simply request a inclusion pointer.  As a  general rule, I support Security Considerations
by reference.  Unfortunately, RFC 4360 provides yet another indirection and the reference
is empty.

From RFC 4360:

8.  Security Considerations

  This extension to BGP has similar security implications as BGP
  Communities [RFC1997].

  This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues.
  Specifically, an operator who is relying on the information carried
  in BGP must have a transitive trust relationship back to the source
  of the information.  Specifying the mechanism(s) to provide such a
  relationship is beyond the scope of this document.

And from RFC 1997:

Security Considerations

  Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

The authors need to write a meaningful Security Considerations section
addressing BGP Extended Communities, or find a prior documents that
already explores the topic.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1., paragraph 1:
>    IPv4 Addres Specific Extended Community, but do not support IPv6

  Nit: s/Addres/Address/


Section 4., paragraph 1:
>    All the security considerations for BGP Extended Communities apply
>    here.

  It would be useful to provide a reference.


Section 6., paragraph 2:
>    [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>    Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
  2119 boilerplate text. Suggest to remove the text and the reference.

[Ballot discuss]
I have reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02, and have
couple of questions that I'd like to discuss before recommending
approval of the document.

The document defines a new transitive optional BGP attribute. Should
it say something about what to do if the receiver recognizes this
attribute, but it's somehow malformed?

Is first-come-first-served an appropriate IANA policy for the Sub-Type
field? (It's only 8 bits, but I don't know if there's danger
of running out with FCFS policy...)

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will in the following
registry "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Data Collection Standard Communities"
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities
create a new sub-registry "IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community:
Initial contents of this sub-registry will be:


Registry Name: "IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community:
Reference: [RFC-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02]
Range Registration Procedures
----------------------------------------- ------------------------------
0x0000-0x00ff Transitive communities First Come First Served
0x4000-0x40ff Non-transitive communities First Come First Served

Registry:
Type Value Name Reference
------------ --------------------------------------- --------
0x002 IPv6 address specific Route Target [RFC-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02]
0x003 IPv6 address specific Route Origin [RFC-l3vpn-v6-ext-communities-02]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

Proto writeup by Danny McPherson:

    (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

    The Document Shepherd is myself (Danny McPherson). I believe that
    the 01 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication
    on the Internet Standards Track.

    (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

    The document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call, although we received
    no comments on the document during the Last Call.  It was also
    Last Called in the IDR WG because of the proximity to IDR work.
    No outstanding comments exist.

    (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

    No.

    (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

    No.

    (1.e)  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 were no objections during the WG Last Call on the document,
    and the utility of the specification is both obvious and intuitive.

    (1.f)  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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

    No.

    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

    The boilerplate for the document needs to be updated, the authors
    have no issues with the new boilerplate and will submit a new revision
    when the I-D submission window is re-opened.  No other concerns exist.

    (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

    The document split its references. There are no normative
    references that are not published, so there should be no
    issues here.

    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

    The document contains IANA consideration section.  To the best
    of my knowledge the IANA considerations are consistent with the
    rest of the document.  The document does create a new registry
    titled "IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community" and the contents
    of that registry are clearly identified.

    (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

    No section of this document is written in a formal language.

    (1.k)  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
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

    Current specifications of BGP Extended Communities [BGP-EXTCOMM]
    support IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, but do not support
    IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community. The lack of IPv6 Address
    Specific Extended Community may be a problem when an application uses
    IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, and one wants to use this
    application in a pure IPv6 environment. This document defines a new
    BGP attribute, IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community that
    addresses this problem. The IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community
    is similar to the IPv4 Address Specific Extended Community, except
    that it carries an IPv6 address rather than an IPv4 address.

          Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
              example, was there controversy about particular points or
              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
              rough?

    This document is a product of L3VPN WG. There were no comments
    on the document during the WG Last Call, nor were than any from
    the IDR WG.

          Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    Not to my knowledge, or that of the author, but my knowledge is
    limited.

              Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
              to implement the specification?

    I do not know.

              Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as
              having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted
              in important changes or a conclusion that the document
              had no substantive issues?

    Not to the best of my knowledge, or that of the author, but the
    document is a straightforward extension of the existing extended
    communities RFC. So, with this in mind one should not expect to
    have any substantive issues with the document.

              If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
              review, what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of
              a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

    Nope, none of the above.