BMP Peer Up Message Namespace
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-05

[Ballot comment]
The shepherd writeup asks why this should have the status it does, but this wasn't answered.

I am otherwise disappointed that I have no reason to DISCUSS John's document.

[Ballot comment]
** Abstract and Section 1
  The
  changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations
  of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this
  specification.

-- I am unable to parse this sentence.  What does it mean?  For example, do documents make "informal changes"?

-- In what way is RFC8671 and RFC9069 updated?

** Section 5.  Editorial.
  This rearrangement of deck chairs does not change the underlying
  security issues inherent in the existing [RFC7854].

Consider restating this text more clearly without using the Titanic (?) metaphor.

NEW

This document does not alter the security considerations of RFC7854 which continue to apply.

[Ballot comment]
Title/Abstract/Introduction:  Please expand BMP at least once near the beginning of the draft (RFC 7854 does that in the title).

Section 5:  While I like the 'rearrangement of the deck chairs' language, it might not be the best when writing for an international audience.

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-04
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Nits

### S3

* "is is created" -> "is created"

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document. Some editorial suggestions/comments below (they can be ignored):

Should BMP be expanded in the abstract (or even in the title) ?

Unsure whether the leading text of section 3 is useful as the 3.* subsections are rather short and clear.

Section 2, suggest to use "UTF-8 string" as the name; is it useful to define this type, which is used only once ?

Section 3.1, isn't there some contradictions between `The Information field contains *a* string (Section 2)` and `If *multiple* strings are included` ? It is at least unclear to me.

Section 3.3, defining the semantic and syntax of "information" in the description of "Information Type" seems weird and unusual.

Section 5, it is a matter of taste of course, but isn't `This rearrangement of deck chairs` a little too informal ?

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, a new registry is to be created called the BMP Peer Up Message TLVs registry. The new registry will be located in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/

The registration procedures, as defined by RFC8126, for the new registry are:

Range Registration Procedures
------+-------------------------
0 Standards Action
1-2 Reserved
3-32767 Standards Action
32768-65530 First Come, First Served
65531-65534 Experimental
65535 Reserved

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type Description Reference
-----+----------+-----------
0 String [ RFC-to-be ]
1 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
2 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
3 VRF/Table Name [ RFC-to-be ]
4 Admin Label [ RFC-to-be ]
65535 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, for the BMP Initiation and Peer Up Information TLVs registry located in the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/

the registry will be renamed to the BMP Initiation Information TLVs registry. The contents of the registry will be replaced with the following:

Type Description Reference
----+-----------+-----------
0 String [ RFC-to-be ]
1 sysDescr [ RFC-to-be ]
2 sysName [ RFC-to-be ]
3 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
4 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]
5-65534 Unassigned
65535 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

The registration procedures for the registry remain the same as before.

We understand that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed 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. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-09-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up@ietf.org, grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, job@fastly.com, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BMP Peer Up Message Namespace) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG (grow)
to consider the following document: - 'BMP Peer Up Message Namespace'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-09-17. 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


  RFC 7854, BMP, uses different message types for different purposes.
  Most of these are Type, Length, Value (TLV) structured.  One message
  type, the Peer Up message, lacks a set of TLVs defined for its use,
  instead sharing a namespace with the Initiation message.  Subsequent
  experience has shown that this namespace sharing was a mistake, as it
  hampers the extension of the protocol.

  This document updates RFC 7854 by creating an independent namespace
  for the Peer Up message.  It also updates RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 by
  moving the defined codepoints in the newly introduced registry.  The
  changes in this document are formal only, compliant implementations
  of RFC 7854, RFC 8671 and RFC 9069 also comply with this
  specification.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

A few people spoke in favor of publication, no objections were raised.

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

no controversy

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-one threatened an appeal

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)?

The document contains an Implementation Status section, 2 open source implementations exist: FRRouting & pmacct.

## 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.

no

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.

no

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]?

no yang

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?

The document is easy to read and ready for publication.
This specification addresses an design oversight in early versions of the BMP protocol.

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?

I don't think so

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?

Standards Track.

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.

yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/3wvU90LK064xLUK-GPtpmHtMUzA/

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.

Yes

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.)

idnits does not appear to show any issues

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

All references are Normative, and appear to be proper

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.

n/a

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?

no

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.

This document updates RFC 7854, RFC 8671, and RFC 9069; the abstract and introduction describe why

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]).

Yes

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.

Registration procedures are Standards Action and FCFS; not designated expert.

[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 Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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?

A few people spoke in favor of publication, no objections were raised.

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

no controversy

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-one threatened an appeal

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)?

The document contains an Implementation Status section, 2 open source implementations exist: FRRouting & pmacct.

## 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.

no

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.

no

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]?

no yang

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?

The document is easy to read and ready for publication.
This specification addresses an design oversight in early versions of the BMP protocol.

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?

I don't think so

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?

Standards Track.

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.

yes, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/3wvU90LK064xLUK-GPtpmHtMUzA/

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.

Yes

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.)

idnits does not appear to show any issues

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

All references are Normative, and appear to be proper

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.

n/a

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?

no

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.

This document updates RFC 7854, RFC 8671, and RFC 9069; the abstract and introduction describe why

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]).

Yes

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.

Registration procedures are Standards Action and FCFS; not designated expert.

[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/