BGP link bandwidth extended community use cases
draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-09

## Document History

> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document was extensively discussed in BESS with cross-over discussion with IDR.

> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>    the consensus was particularly rough?

One of the core use cases of the document dealt with the BGP extended community
transitivity property.  In the version of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth that
was published at the time and had been stale for some time, the declared
transitivity was non-transitive.  At the same time, implementations existed of
the link-bandwidth feature that used transitive extended communities.  The
transitive and non-transitive implementations of the link-bandwidth feature did
not interoperate.

Addressing the core use case of permitting DMZ link-bandwidth to be sent into
adjacent BGP ASes required addressing the transitivity concerns.

The result of this discussion lead to IDR picking up the lingering work on the
link-bandwidth internet-draft, adding support in the draft covering the
deployed transitive versions of the feature, and addressing how the transitive
and non-transitive features would interoperate.

Additionally, work in IDR to address the protocol details of how non-transitive
extended communities were permitted to be injected at external BGP peering
sessions was taken up in draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis.  The 4360-bis work, in
addition to accommodating this injection of non-transitive extended
communities, also took up work to address other issues surrounding BGP extended
communities.

Both drafts, 4360-bis and DMZ, should be evaluated vs. each other for
procedural consistency.

The primary use case of providing for aggregation math for multiple BGP routes
carrying BGP link-bandwidth extended communities was fairly consistently
understood throughout this document's lifetime. A number of edge cases for such
aggregation were discussed as part of BESS, and later IDR, working group
discussion.

One detail receiving discussion was the semantic overloading of a single
link-bandwidth type for both underlay and overlay and other BGP transit
scenarios.  While it was recognized that there may be some benefit in having
more than one extended community type for differing scenarios, current
operational practice manages this as part of network provisioning.  Future work
may be taken up in IDR or BESS covering other link-bandwidth types and how they
interact with the link-bandwidth extended community.

> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
>    so, please summarize 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.

> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
>    the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
>    plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
>    either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
>    (where)?

There are multiple implementations of the draft's features.

Implementation reports are TBD.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
>    IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
>    from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
>    reviews took place.

As noted above, there is a strong dependency on draft-ietf-idr-4360bis and the
documents should be reviewed together.

This document also completely depends on draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth.  That
draft has completed IESG review and is in the RFC editor's queue for
publication.  When reviewing this draft vs. the link-bandwidth feature, that is
what should be used for review.

> 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
>    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>    been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
>    formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>    the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>    comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>    in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

This feature is built upon the link-bandwidth feature.  YANG modeling for that
extended community in its transitive and non-transitive forms has some level of
modeling in OpenConfig, but not yet in IETF.  There is some controversy in how
link-bandwidth should be modeled in YANG due to its dependency on IEEE 754
32-bit floating point values not being able to be carried in YANG's decimal64
encoding.  Such issues have been deferred to resolution in netmod as part of
YANG-next.

> 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
>    final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
>    BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
>    document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
>    to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
>    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
>    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
>    reviews?

This document would benefit from a routing directorate review, and potentially
a review from the new BGP directorate.

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
>    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
>    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
>    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  However, based on prior discussion relating to the
link-bandwidth draft with Ketan, Informative may be the best status.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

An IPR poll was done as part of adoption:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/5AT73Zwal3ycE9xLhdFQuM0JJKg/

- Satya Mohanty - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/mMPu79hewlxOA34yKSZHy32rYEk/

- Akshay Gattani - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cJufyMhsc1i5ycOw-1TNgSDnxkQ/
- Ajay Kini - covered by Akshay?

- Jeff Tantsura - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/BDGciUaRn6VnvBLyoNF9YP9HbM8/

- Stephane Litkowski - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/khKow9WUXei8XwSuZTpm_aI--pc/

Attestations are required for:

- Arie Vayner

- Reshma Das

> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There is currently greater than five authors on the draft.  Two editors have
been selected for the draft in addition to the author list.

This draft represents significant collaboration from a number of companies.
The chairs will be polled for current justification for the number of authors.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no substantive nits for the draft.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

TBD

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
>    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
>    references?

N/A

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
>    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
>    list them.

No.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth is currently in the publication queue for the RFC
Editor.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

> 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
>    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
>    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
>    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
>    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

As part of this document's evolution, all signaling work was deferred to the
BGP link-bandwidth feature, and the related RFC 4360-bis work.  The document
thus has no IANA considerations of its own.

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
>    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
>    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

## Document History

> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document was extensively discussed in BESS with cross-over discussion with IDR.

> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>    the consensus was particularly rough?

One of the core use cases of the document dealt with the BGP extended community
transitivity property.  In the version of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth that
was published at the time and had been stale for some time, the declared
transitivity was non-transitive.  At the same time, implementations existed of
the link-bandwidth feature that used transitive extended communities.  The
transitive and non-transitive implementations of the link-bandwidth feature did
not interoperate.

Addressing the core use case of permitting DMZ link-bandwidth to be sent into
adjacent BGP ASes required addressing the transitivity concerns.

The result of this discussion lead to IDR picking up the lingering work on the
link-bandwidth internet-draft, adding support in the draft covering the
deployed transitive versions of the feature, and addressing how the transitive
and non-transitive features would interoperate.

Additionally, work in IDR to address the protocol details of how non-transitive
extended communities were permitted to be injected at external BGP peering
sessions was taken up in draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis.  The 4360-bis work, in
addition to accommodating this injection of non-transitive extended
communities, also took up work to address other issues surrounding BGP extended
communities.

Both drafts, 4360-bis and DMZ, should be evaluated vs. each other for
procedural consistency.

The primary use case of providing for aggregation math for multiple BGP routes
carrying BGP link-bandwidth extended communities was fairly consistently
understood throughout this document's lifetime. A number of edge cases for such
aggregation were discussed as part of BESS, and later IDR, working group
discussion.

One detail receiving discussion was the semantic overloading of a single
link-bandwidth type for both underlay and overlay and other BGP transit
scenarios.  While it was recognized that there may be some benefit in having
more than one extended community type for differing scenarios, current
operational practice manages this as part of network provisioning.  Future work
may be taken up in IDR or BESS covering other link-bandwidth types and how they
interact with the link-bandwidth extended community.

> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
>    so, please summarize 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.

> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
>    the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
>    plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
>    either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
>    (where)?

There are multiple implementations of the draft's features.

Implementation reports are TBD.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
>    IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
>    from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
>    reviews took place.

As noted above, there is a strong dependency on draft-ietf-idr-4360bis and the
documents should be reviewed together.

This document also completely depends on draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth.  That
draft has completed IESG review and is in the RFC editor's queue for
publication.  When reviewing this draft vs. the link-bandwidth feature, that is
what should be used for review.

> 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
>    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>    been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
>    formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>    the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>    comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>    in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

This feature is built upon the link-bandwidth feature.  YANG modeling for that
extended community in its transitive and non-transitive forms has some level of
modeling in OpenConfig, but not yet in IETF.  There is some controversy in how
link-bandwidth should be modeled in YANG due to its dependency on IEEE 754
32-bit floating point values not being able to be carried in YANG's decimal64
encoding.  Such issues have been deferred to resolution in netmod as part of
YANG-next.

> 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
>    final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
>    BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
>    document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
>    to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
>    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
>    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
>    reviews?

This document would benefit from a routing directorate review, and potentially
a review from the new BGP directorate.

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
>    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
>    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
>    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  However, based on prior discussion relating to the
link-bandwidth draft with Ketan, Informative may be the best status.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

An IPR poll was done as part of adoption:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/5AT73Zwal3ycE9xLhdFQuM0JJKg/

- Satya Mohanty - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/mMPu79hewlxOA34yKSZHy32rYEk/

- Akshay Gattani - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cJufyMhsc1i5ycOw-1TNgSDnxkQ/
- Ajay Kini - covered by Akshay?

- Jeff Tantsura - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/BDGciUaRn6VnvBLyoNF9YP9HbM8/

Attestations are required for:

- Stephane Litkowski

- Arie Vayner

- Reshma Das

> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There is currently greater than five authors on the draft.  Two editors have
been selected for the draft in addition to the author list.

This draft represents significant collaboration from a number of companies.
The chairs will be polled for current justification for the number of authors.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no substantive nits for the draft.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

TBD

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
>    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
>    references?

N/A

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
>    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
>    list them.

No.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth is currently in the publication queue for the RFC
Editor.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

> 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
>    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
>    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
>    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
>    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

As part of this document's evolution, all signaling work was deferred to the
BGP link-bandwidth feature, and the related RFC 4360-bis work.  The document
thus has no IANA considerations of its own.

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
>    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
>    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

## Document History

> 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
>    few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document was extensively discussed in BESS with cross-over discussion with IDR.

> 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
>    the consensus was particularly rough?

One of the core use cases of the document dealt with the BGP extended community
transitivity property.  In the version of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth that
was published at the time and had been stale for some time, the declared
transitivity was non-transitive.  At the same time, implementations existed of
the link-bandwidth feature that used transitive extended communities.  The
transitive and non-transitive implementations of the link-bandwidth feature did
not interoperate.

Addressing the core use case of permitting DMZ link-bandwidth to be sent into
adjacent BGP ASes required addressing the transitivity concerns.

The result of this discussion lead to IDR picking up the lingering work on the
link-bandwidth internet-draft, adding support in the draft covering the
deployed transitive versions of the feature, and addressing how the transitive
and non-transitive features would interoperate.

Additionally, work in IDR to address the protocol details of how non-transitive
extended communities were permitted to be injected at external BGP peering
sessions was taken up in draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis.  The 4360-bis work, in
addition to accommodating this injection of non-transitive extended
communities, also took up work to address other issues surrounding BGP extended
communities.

Both drafts, 4360-bis and DMZ, should be evaluated vs. each other for
procedural consistency.

The primary use case of providing for aggregation math for multiple BGP routes
carrying BGP link-bandwidth extended communities was fairly consistently
understood throughout this document's lifetime. A number of edge cases for such
aggregation were discussed as part of BESS, and later IDR, working group
discussion.

One detail receiving discussion was the semantic overloading of a single
link-bandwidth type for both underlay and overlay and other BGP transit
scenarios.  While it was recognized that there may be some benefit in having
more than one extended community type for differing scenarios, current
operational practice manages this as part of network provisioning.  Future work
may be taken up in IDR or BESS covering other link-bandwidth types and how they
interact with the link-bandwidth extended community.

> 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
>    so, please summarize 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.

> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
>    the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
>    plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
>    either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
>    (where)?

There are multiple implementations of the draft's features.

Implementation reports are TBD.

## Additional Reviews

> 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
>    IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
>    from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
>    reviews took place.

As noted above, there is a strong dependency on draft-ietf-idr-4360bis and the
documents should be reviewed together.

This document also completely depends on draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth.  That
draft has completed IESG review and is in the RFC editor's queue for
publication.  When reviewing this draft vs. the link-bandwidth feature, that is
what should be used for review.

> 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
>    such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

> 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
>    been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
>    formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
>    the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
>    comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
>    in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

This feature is built upon the link-bandwidth feature.  YANG modeling for that
extended community in its transitive and non-transitive forms has some level of
modeling in OpenConfig, but not yet in IETF.  There is some controversy in how
link-bandwidth should be modeled in YANG due to its dependency on IEEE 754
32-bit floating point values not being able to be carried in YANG's decimal64
encoding.  Such issues have been deferred to resolution in netmod as part of
YANG-next.

> 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
>    final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
>    BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

> 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
>    document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
>    to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

> 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
>    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
>    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
>    reviews?

This document would benefit from a routing directorate review, and potentially
a review from the new BGP directorate.

> 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
>    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
>    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
>    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  However, based on prior discussion relating to the
link-bandwidth draft with Ketan, Informative may be the best status.

> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

An IPR poll was done as part of adoption:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/5AT73Zwal3ycE9xLhdFQuM0JJKg/

- Satya Mohanty - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/mMPu79hewlxOA34yKSZHy32rYEk/

- Akshay Gattani - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cJufyMhsc1i5ycOw-1TNgSDnxkQ/
- Ajay Kini - covered by Akshay?

Attestations are required for:

- Stephane Litkowski

- Arie Vayner
- Jeff Tantsura
- Reshma Das

> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There is currently greater than five authors on the draft.  Two editors have
been selected for the draft in addition to the author list.

This draft represents significant collaboration from a number of companies.
The chairs will be polled for current justification for the number of authors.

> 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
>    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
>    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
>    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are no substantive nits for the draft.

> 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
>    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

TBD

> 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
>    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
>    references?

N/A

> 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
>    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
>    list them.

No.

> 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
>    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
>    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth is currently in the publication queue for the RFC
Editor.

> 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
>    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
>    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
>    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
>    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

> 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
>    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
>    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
>    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
>    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

As part of this document's evolution, all signaling work was deferred to the
BGP link-bandwidth feature, and the related RFC 4360-bis work.  The document
thus has no IANA considerations of its own.

> 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
>    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
>    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

N/A

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ajay Kini , Akshay Gattani , Arie Vayner , Jeff Tantsura , MOHANTY Satya , Reshma Das , bess-chairs@ietf.org