Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Routing Information Export Format with Geo-Location Extensions
draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07

Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following in the
"TABLE_DUMP_V2 Subtype Codes" registry to be created by draft-ietf-grow-mrt:

7 GEO_PEER_TABLE [RFC-to-be]

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until both this document and draft-ietf-grow-mrt been approved for
publication.

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 20-Aug-2011 raised two editorial
  comments.  Please consider them.

  1.  Section 5 "This section is to aide" should be "aid"

  2.  Section 6 "does not support the the" delete the second "the"

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 16-Apr-2011 included two questions.
  These questions were asked in a Last Call comment, but the questions
  were not answered.  I would like to know the answers.
 
  1. Why not include it in draft-ietf-grow-mrt?

  2. Why is this Informational RFC and not standard-track like
    draft-ietf-grow-mrt?

[Ballot comment]
The final point of my Discuss is taken care of with the RFC Editor Note that rewrites the Abstract.

Many thanks for the attention and mork

[Ballot discuss]
Updated for -04. Thanks for the work to pick up some of my Discuss points.

Given that "This document updates the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT)..." I don't see why there isn't
an "Updates" statement in the header with a reference to the RFC it
updates.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information export format with geo-location extensions) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
  routing information export format with geo-location extensions'
  as a 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 2011-08-26. 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 the Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) export
  format for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information by
  extending it to include optional terrestrial coordinates of a BGP
  Collector and its BGP Peers.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-geomrt/


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

[Ballot comment]
I agree with other points raised about revealing physical location,
and I have a couple of additional questions:

1. How does the BGP collector obtain the geolocation of its peers?

2. From section 8:

  It
  is recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and BGP peers
  consider their own privacy concerns before supplying geographical
  coordinates to BGP data collection systems.

Depending on the answer to 1, how does the BGP peer control how its
geographical coordinates are supplied to the BGP collector?

[Ballot comment]
Support the other ADs DISCUSS positions on Informational vs. Standards Track

Further, the security considerations should at least mention the fact that there's no way to prevent someone from lying about location data, yet would appear to have no bearing at all on BGP operation.  It might totally mess up any later analysis someone is trying to use the MRT data for as they'd have little way to validate historic coordinates for a given router.

[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 16-Apr-2011 included two questions.
  These questions were asked in a Last Call comment, but the questions
  were not answered.  I would like to know the answers.
 
  1. Why not include it in draft-ietf-grow-mrt?

  2. Why is this Informational RFC and not standard-track like
    draft-ietf-grow-mrt?

[Ballot discuss]
draft-ietf-grow-mrt is Standard Track. I don't understand why this
I-D (which defines further protocol extensions) is Informational.

Given that "This document extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT)..." I don't see why there isn't
an "Updates" statement in the header.

---

draft-ietf-grow-mrt appears to create an IANA registry to track
subtypes. Why does this document not include IANA actions for the new
subtype that it defines?

Note that the allocation procedures in draft-ietf-grow-mrt are "IETF
Review" so you would be OK if this document does stay as Informational,
but you would still need an IANA section.

[Ballot comment]
6.  Security Considerations

  This extension to the "MRT format" [I-D.ietf-grow-mrt] defines fields
  that are of a descriptive nature and provide information that is
  useful in the analysis of routing systems.  As such, the author
  believes that they do not constitute an additional security risk.  It
  is recommended that the operators of the BGP collector and Peers
  consider their own privacy concerns before supplying geographical
  coordinates in MRT dumps.

Comment:

Isn't there also an enhanced threat in revealing to a physical attacker the precise geographical location of a strategic router?

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (MRT BGP routing information export format with geo-location extensions) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'MRT BGP routing information export format with geo-location
extensions'
  as an Informational RFC

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 2011-04-29. 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.

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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-geomrt/

>  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
>        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
>        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
>        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
>
>      Chris Morrow is the document shephard for this document.
>      I have reviewed this version of the document, I believe it's
> ready for IESG review.
>
>  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
>        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
>        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
>        have been performed?
>
>        I believe the document got adequate review from the wg.
>        I don't have any concerns about the review done.
>
>  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
>        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
>        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
>        AAA, internationalization or XML?
>
>        I don't believe that this document needs more external review.
>
>  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
>        issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
>        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
>        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
>        this issue.
>
>        I have no concerns related to this version of the document.
>
>  (1.e) 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?
>
>      The consensus was as good as most GROW document consensus calls go.
>
>
>  (1.f) 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
>        entered into the ID Tracker.)
>
>      no threats of appeal were raised.
>
>  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
>        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
>        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
>        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
>        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
>        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
>
>      There is one comment (which is invalid, date of copyright not
> matching this date)
>      There were 2 warnings (referenced documents in the bibliography
> not referenced in the document)
>          These seem also not important, one reference is to: RFC4271,
> the other RFC4760. Both of these
>          topics are referenced in the document, however.
>
>  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
>        informative? 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
>        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
>        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
>        so, list these downward references to support the Area
>        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
>
>        Yes, references are split.
>
>  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
>        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
>        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
>        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
>        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
>        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
>        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
>        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
>        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
>        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
>        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
>        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
>
>      Yes
>
>  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
>        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
>        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
>        an automated checker?
>
>      Yes, none apply here.
>
>  (1.k) 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 extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) MRT export
>        format for routing information to include terrestrial coordinates."
>
>    Working Group Summary
>        Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>        example, was there controversy about particular points or
>        were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>        rough?
>
>        Nothing worth noting.
>
>    Document Quality
>        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>        implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>        merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>        e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>        conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>        there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>        what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>        review, on what date was the request posted?
>
>      Terry has an implementation of this, yes, Based on BGPd.