Skip to main content

Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Author Adrian Farrel
Last updated 2019-07-26
Replaced by draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry, RFC 9029
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-00
IDR Group                                                      A. Farrel
Internet-Draft                                        Old Dog Consulting
Updates: 7752 (if approved)                                July 25, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 26, 2020

Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link
                  State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
                  draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-00

Abstract

   RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).  IANA
   created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border
   Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a
   number of sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for
   those policies is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126.

   This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for
   all of the registries to "Expert Review."

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Farrel                  Expires January 26, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           BGP-LS Registry Update                July 2019

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] requested
   IANA to create a registry consistent called the "Border Gateway
   Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of
   sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for those
   policies is "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126].

   The "Specification Required" policy requires evaluation of any
   assignment request by a "Designated Expert" and guidelines for any
   such experts are given in section 5.1 of [RFC7752].  In addition,
   this policy requires "the values and their meanings must be
   documented in a permanent and readily available public specification,
   in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent
   implementations is possible" [RFC8126].  Further, the intention
   behind "permanent and readily available" is that "a document can
   reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA
   assignment of the requested value" [RFC8126].

   It is often considered that it is the responsiblity of the Designated
   Expert to make a determination as to whether a specification meets
   the requirement to be permanent and readily publically available.  A
   degree of contention arises in this case because Internet-Drafts are
   now permanently archived in the IETF&s tools archive, yet each such
   document is marked with a piece of boilerplate text as follows that
   brings doubt about its suitability as a permanent record:

      Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
      months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
      documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
      as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
      progress."

Farrel                  Expires January 26, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           BGP-LS Registry Update                July 2019

   Another allocation policy called "Expert Review" is defined in
   [RFC8126].  This policy also requires Expert Review, but has no
   requirement for a formal document.

   All reviews by Designated Experts are guided by advice given in the
   document that defined the registry and set the allocation policy.

   This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for
   all of the registries to "Expert Review" and updating the guidance to
   the Expert Review.

2.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
   State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry".  This registry contains four
   sub-registries:

   o  BGP-LS NLRI-Types

   o  BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
      Attribute TLVs

   o  BGP-LS Protocol-IDs

   o  BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs

   IANA is requested to change the assignment policy for each of these
   registries to "Expert Review".

2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts

   Section 5.1 of [RFC7752] gives guidance to Designated Experts.  This
   section replaces that guidance.  It should be noted that the only
   change to this guidance is the removal of the requirement of formal
   documentation.

   In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here,
   the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the
   requested code points.  Last, the DE must verify that any
   specification produced in the IETF that requests one of these code
   points has been made available for review by the IDR working group in
   the form of an Internet-Draft, and that any other request for a code
   point does not conflict with work that is active or already published
   within the IETF.

Farrel                  Expires January 26, 2020                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           BGP-LS Registry Update                July 2019

3.  Security Considerations

   The security consideratoin of [RFC7752] still apply.

   Note that the change to the expert review guildelines make the
   registry and the Designated Experts slightly more vulnerable to
   denial of service attacks through excessive and bigus requests for
   code points.  It is expected that the registry cannot be effectively
   attacked because the Designated Experts would, themselves, fall to
   any such attack first.  Designated Experts are expected to report to
   the IDR working group chairs and responsible Area Director if they
   believe an attack to be in progress, and should immediately halt all
   requests for allocation.  This may temporarily block all legitimate
   risks until mitigations have been put in place.

   This change in allocation policy should not have any effect on the
   integrity of BGP-LS since there is no change to the review
   requirements for the work that underlies the request.

4.  Acknowledgements

   This work is based on the IANA considerations section of [RFC7752].
   The author thanks the people who worked on that document.

   The author would like to be able to thank John Scudder for suggesting
   the need for this document.

5.  Normative References

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Author's Address

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting

   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Farrel                  Expires January 26, 2020                [Page 4]