Clarifications to BGP Origin Validation Based on Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-05

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this work.
I only have an editorial comment:
Isn't the word 'Route' missing between 'the' and 'is':
  When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state of
  the is set to as NotFound, Valid, or Invalid per [RFC6811].

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this. I have only minor typographical nits to suggest changes for; these don't warrant a new version of the document (as I'm sure they'll be caught in RFC Editor review), but should probably be corrected if a new version of the document is produced prior to advancing it:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract:

>  document is meant to clarify possible misunderstandings causing those
>  mis-implementations; and thus updates RFC6811 by clarifying that all

Nit: "...RFC 6811..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
>  other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas, which

Nit: "...areas: which..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3:

>  neighbors about propagation of Invalid routes.  For this reason,
>  [RFC6811] says

Nit: "...says:"

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clarifications!!  I have just a couple of comments:

(1) §3: "...the router SHOULD use the AS of the router's BGP configuration".  If not ambiguous, when would it be ok to not use the ASN from the local configuration?  IOW, why SHOULD and not MUST?

(2) §1: s/the origin validation state of the is set to as NotFound/the origin validation state is set to NotFound

(3) [nit] The language in the Introduction is very tentative for a Standards Track document.  For example: "This document attempts to clarify...The implementation issues seem not to be about how to validate...The issues seem to be ..."  Either this document clarifies or it doesn't; IOW, this is not an attempt at clarification.  Also, I'm sure the issues are known.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-08-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify@ietf.org, keyur@arrcus.com, sidrops@ietf.org, Keyur Patel , sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Origin Validation Clarifications) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the SIDR Operations WG (sidrops) to
consider the following document: - 'Origin Validation Clarifications'
  as Proposed Standard

This is a second IETF LC. The first one was accidentally started as a
"Internet Standard" instead of "Proposed Standard".

The original LC notice is here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/BgXnazE6uDDDnL4QEASwE4j9fHk
The original LC thread is here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg108610.html
Thanks to S. Moonesamy for noticing this, and pointing out that a new LC
is cleaner / more appropriate.


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 2018-08-10. 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


  Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
  other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas: which
  routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified
  by configuration.  This document is meant to clarify possible
  misunderstandings causing those mis-implementations; and thus updates
  RFC6811 by clarifying that all prefixes should be marked, and that
  policy must not be applied without operator configuration"





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify/ballot/


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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-08-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify@ietf.org, keyur@arrcus.com, sidrops@ietf.org, Keyur Patel , sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Origin Validation Clarifications) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the SIDR Operations WG (sidrops) to
consider the following document: - 'Origin Validation Clarifications'
  as Internet 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 2018-08-08. 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


  Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
  other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas: which
  routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified
  by configuration.  This document is meant to clarify possible
  misunderstandings causing those mis-implementations; and thus updates
  RFC6811 by clarifying that all prefixes should be marked, and that
  policy must not be applied without operator configuration"





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify/ballot/


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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc6482: A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc8097: BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
    rfc6811: BGP Prefix Origin Validation (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)

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?

StandardsTrack

(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

  Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
  other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas, which
  routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified
  by configuration.  This document is meant to clarify possible
  misunderstandings causing those mis-implementations.

Working Group Summary

WG discussion was solid, fun and filled with non-tears.
(this is surprising given the sidr/sidrops world generally speaking)

Document Quality

The suggested changes in the document are fairly straightforward. A number of implementations MAY already have adopted these changes. Some implementations already supported the suggested changes. Because of its simplicity, there was not a lot of discussion of the document on the mailing list. We believe the woking group is solidly behind this document. The chairs feel the document is ready to progress further.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

The document shepherds are Chris Morrow and Keyur Patel.
The responsible Operations and  Managment Area Director is Warren Kumari.

(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.


Document Shepherds read the document, reviewed comments and

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

No concerns

(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.

Nope

(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.

no concerns

(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.

unnecessary.

(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 was as solid as it ever is in sidr/sidrops.

(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 threats.

(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/id-issues.

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

there's no formal review required.

(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.

no changes expected.

(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).

review made, no actions required

(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.

N/A

(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.

none required.