Global Routing Operations
charter-ietf-grow-05

[Ballot comment]
My previous comment:
'In 2009, the starting paragraph focused on BGP, is that different now?  Is GROW still focused on BGP operational challenges?  Or has that focus expanded?  Has that scope creep been agreed with other working groups?'

This along with Gunter's comment, this resulted in a single addition of 'BGP' in one location down in the objectives section.  If 'the global (IP) routing network' is a euphemism for BGP, then that needs to be explained up at the top of the charter.

[Ballot comment]
Paragraph 10
> *  Standardize YANG data models and automation building blocks
>    related to the operations of global routing system.

Wouldn't the WG where these routing protocols are being defined be the right place to do this work, with GROW providing the input? And, the YANG data models should already be defining the operational aspect of the protocols.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Paragraph 1
> The working group will document the operational aspects of
> measurement, monitoring, policy, operational global routing system
> security, or safe default behavior of global IP routing protocol
> implementations and deployments.  The GROW working group will also
> develop and increase awareness to mitigations to prevent malpractice
> (e.g., route leaks) in the global routing system.

Too many "operational" words in the first sentence??

[Ballot comment]
Part of `The GROW working group will also develop and increase awareness to mitigations` should probably rewritten to specify 'operational mitigations' (i.e., no new protocols) and I find `develop and increase awareness` difficult to parse.

My previous comment still stands though: I have more problems with `Document operational aspects of IP interconnection` as it is rather vague/broad and goes beyond BGP.

[Ballot comment]
While these are technically 'no objection' comments, I would like to see these (and Gunter's) comments addressed.

In 2009, the starting paragraph focused on BGP, is that different now?  Is GROW still focused on BGP operational challenges?  Or has that focus expanded?  Has that scope creep been agreed with other working groups?

Most charters don't specify what is handled at IETF meetings vs on the mailing list.  Why is it necessary here?

nit:  problems//challenges

[Ballot comment]
It is always useful to refresh a WG charter, so thanks for the job. Some comments anyway.

Should YANG be explicit in `The GROW working group will develop data models` ?

While I am fully supportive of `Agenda time at GROW sessions at IETF meetings...` paragraph, this is quite unusual for a WG, e.g., even the recent SRV6OPS WG only uses `Being a forum for network operators to discuss operational matters in SRv6 networks.`

I have more problems with `Document operational aspects of IP interconnection` as it is rather vague/broad and goes beyond BGP.

[Ballot comment]
The line between SIDROPS and GROW is maybe a little vague.

When looking at the obsoleted charter of SIDR we find in the (old) SIDR charter:

"The purpose of the SIDR working group is to reduce vulnerabilities in
the inter-domain routing system."

The SIDROPS charter has following text:

"
Sidrops is responsible for
encouraging deployment of theSIDR technologies while ensuring as secure
of a global routing system, as possible, during the transition.
"

Now the new proposed GROW charter 04-02 states:

"
The working group will also provide inputs for
addressing operational and routing security requirements of Internet-
connected networks, and, where appropriate, recommend work to be
taken up by those working groups.
"
and
"
Document the operational aspects of securing the Internet routing
system.
"

When reading this with a bit of a skeptical lens, there’s potential for some overlap to be interpreted. The text says that SIDR operations belong in SIDROPS, but what exactly does that mean, especially considering that SIDR’s focus is on building a secure routing system?

As I understand it, GROW wouldn’t be covering operational aspects of RPKI, origin validation of BGP announcements, or BGPSEC. Maybe it would help to call that out explicitly in the GROW charter, just to avoid any potential confusion down the road?

[Ballot comment]
The refresh is about removing stale things (as the current charter is from 2009), better structure the WG missions, and include provisions to anchor some of the WG work.

Changed charter milestone "Submit a Recommendation to avoid use of BGP Extended Communities at Internet Exchange Route Servers to the IESG", set due date to September 2025 from August 2025

Changed charter milestone "Submit Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM) version 4 to the IESG", set due date to February 2026 from December 2025, added draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4 to milestone

Changed charter milestone "TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages" to IESG", set description to "TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages to IESG", set due date to November 2025 from July 2025

Changed charter milestone "Submit a YANG Data Model for BMP to the IESG", set due date to October 2025 from September 2025, added draft-ietf-grow-bmp-yang to milestone

Changed charter milestone "Submit a Recommendation to avoid use of BGP Extended Communities at Internet Exchange Route Servers to the IESG", set due date to August 2025 from June 2025, added draft-ietf-grow-ixp-ext-comms to milestone

Changed charter milestone "Submit New BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types to the IESG", set due date to July 2025 from June 2025, added draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats to milestone

Changed charter milestone "Submit a YANG Data Model for BGP Communities to the IESG", set due date to July 2025 from June 2025, added draft-ietf-grow-yang-bgp-communities to milestone

Changed charter milestone "TLV support for BMP Route Monitoring and Peer Down Messages" to IESG", set due date to July 2025 from November 2021, added draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv to milestone

This got stuck, abandoning it for now. This version was very close to cooked, so we can use it as a starting point if we decide to re-charter in the future...

[Ballot comment]
    The purpose of GROW is to consider the operational problems associated
    with the Internet Protocol (IP) global routing systems, including but
    not limited to default-free zone routing table growth, effects of the
    interactions between interior and exterior routing protocols, the effect
    of address allocation policies, or practices on the global routing
    system.  [...]

I'm not sure what the last bit is trying to say.  What "practices" are it that might
have an effect on the global routing system?  Is "on the global routing system" supposed
to apply to the entire list or just the last item?
Also, nit: "including but not limited to" should introduce a list that ends with "and"
(currently "or" is used).

    Where appropriate, GROW documents the operational aspects of

What or who determines when it is "appropriate"?

  SIDR operations related work will occur in
  SIDROPS

nit: end the sentence with a full stop, please.

    GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and SIDROPS,
    with respect to whether they are addressing the relevant operational and
    routing security requirements of Internet-connected networks, and, where
    appropriate, suggest course corrections.

Martin D's point about one-directional advice feels poignant; a different phrasing
than "course corrections" might help, like "areas where improvement would have
significant impact".  (Also, same comment about "where appropriate" as above.)

  Provide documentation to assist in preventing malpractice in the global routing
  system.

Do you have examples in mind of what might be documented that is not a best practice
or an operational aspect (the previous two items)?

The proposed milestones mention "evolving documents"; is there a reference where
those are discussed?

[Ballot comment]
I support Magnus's BLOCK.

This charter appears to envision one-way communication from GROW to other WGs on the work they need to do. Is there no output of this WG that deserves some consultation with the routing area?

[Ballot block]
Sorry, but what the hell does it mean to "Provide stewardship and maintenance"?

noun: stewardship; plural noun: stewardships

    the job of supervising or taking care of something, such as an organization or property.
    "the funding and stewardship of the NHS"

So what is scoped in that role, only updates to fix found issues? Or does it allow also to do extension to the named protocols? Does stewerdship imply a control over other WGs if they attempt to do something with the intended protocols? I expect not the latest, but if one interpret the supervising part that could be implied.

[Ballot comment]
Two editorial things:

  GROW will also advise various working groups, mainly IDR and SIDROPS,
  with respect to whether it is addressing the relevant operational and
  routing security requirements of Internet-connected networks, and where
  appropriate, suggest course corrections.

The antecedent to "it" appears to be "GROW", but I think it's supposed to refer to those various working groups.  Maybe "it" should be "they"?  (Also, super-nit, there should be an additional comma before "where appropriate".)

And there appears to be some bad punctuation problems in the "goals" paragraph -- missing periods, at least.

Much of this is editorial, and was started purely because people pointed out that the old charter was, um, old.

It isn't really chartering new work, more just administrivia...