Codification of AS 0 Processing
draft-ietf-idr-as0-06

[Ballot discuss]
A very easy DISCUSS.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml says:
    0    Reserved - May be use to identify non-routed networks

That should aligned with the draft that specifies that 0 should not be used.
Proposal (already discussed/approved by one of the authors):
    0    Reserved

Regards, Benoit.

[Ballot comment]
  This represents an update to
  the error handling procedures given in [RFC4271] Sections 6.2 and 6.3
  by specifying the behavior in the presence of AS0.

Thanks for this clear statement in the Introduction.  I wish all "updates" documents did that.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there is a single action that is required to be completed.

In the Autonomous System (AS) Numbers registry located at:

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

the number 0 (zero) is currently marked: "Reserved - May be use to identify
non-routed networks" with no whois or reference.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, the description is
to remain as currently provided but that the reference is to be updated to
[ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of
this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until
the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Codification of AS 0 processing.) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document:
- 'Codification of AS 0 processing.'
  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 2012-08-22. 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


  This document updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of AS 0 in BGP
  OPEN and AS_PATH / AS4_PATH BGP attribute.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as0/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-as0/ballot/


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

(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.
  - The spec updates an existing PS.
  - 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 updates RFC 4271 and proscribes the use of AS 0 in BGP
  OPEN and AS_PATH / AS4_PATH BGP attribute.  This is important since
  although it has long been understood that zero is not a valid AS
  number, this restriction has never been formally specified.

Working Group Summary

  There was active discussion in the WG and the document passed through
  a number of iterations reflecting that.  In the end the document
  although short reflects a surprising amount of tuning.
 
Document Quality

  There are at least two known BGP implementations that do not
  accept AS number 0 in an AS_PATH as specified in the draft.
  (Indeed, this appears to have been accepted implementation practice
  prior to the draft's publication.)
 
Personnel

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

(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.

  Careful read-through and several iterations with the primary
  author (resolved satisfactorily). This version is ready for
  publication.

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

  No.
 
(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.

  No.  (Although the motivation for the document relates to
  security, the document stands on its own without needing a
  security-related justification.)

(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.

  None.

(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 above question 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.

  No.

(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? 

  There is good consensus.

(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.

(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.

  None.

(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?

  There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis-06,
  which has already been submitted for publication as an RFC.  There
  is also a normative reference to draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-01.
  The WG is actively working to complete
  draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-01.

(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.

  See above.  Both downrefs may be addressed by waiting for the
  respective documents to be advanced.

(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; yes; yes.

(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).

  The IANA considerations section is brief and consistent with the body
  of the document.  Rest N/A.

(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.

  N/A