BGP Bestpath Selection Criteria Enhancement
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-12

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 6/7/2019

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
  Due to IDR multiple interoperable implementations, this draft is now resurfacing.

    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  3 implementations:
    The implementation report is at
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

    Currently there are 3 separate implementations (Cisco IOS-XR, Cisco IOS-XE, and Juniper)
    The chairs announced announced at IETF 103, interim (replacing IETF 104 meeting),
    and IETF 105 regarding the 2 cisco implementations being counted as unique.
    The WG accepted this work.

    A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  3 implementations:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

Last Shepherd report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/erF9If0OABv-K4iQFZ3U01XmOI4
with follow up:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wr_SVGr30xvEmldqleSqqaHNnp8

Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost.
Susan Hares sought out implementation reports (see email links),
review, and finalized the shepherd's review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate.  The routing-directorate reviewer
should be aware of the current implementations and if changes need to be made
indicate how implementations need to change.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

OPS directorate should review this draft as part of WG LC.
It is implemented in 2 major vendors and deployed so the
if OPS-DIR has issues, they should address how operators should handle it.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.    The security section requirements since 2009
have been increased, so the shepherd requested additional changes
to that section.  These changes have been made in -12.txt version.
Please note that the

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Rajiv Asati
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iqSdivHFPrFvdXyhN97gwjhWsZQ

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR Statements made.

(9) 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? 

Solid in 2009.  As time goes on waiting for implementation reports,
the memory of those days weakens.  However, since 2 major vendors
have implemented and deployed this RFC - the solid WG
support from 2009 has been validated.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

All documents are read for advancement.

One of the RFC reference requires additional comments
since the IESG may be revewing draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt
at the same time as this draft.

RFC5512 has been revised in draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12
due to a lack of implementation support for
the BGP SAFI.  draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt will obsolete
RFC5512.  After the IESG approves the RFC publication,
the IDR or BESS WG will prepare updates to a
group of RFCs that depend on RFC5512. 

Since this draft is implemented with RFC5512 referenced,
it is appropriate to publish it as provided by the -12.txt 

IDR alignment with IETF mantra of  "rough consensus and running code"
means that 2 implementations are required for publication.
The same will be true of the updates of draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt.

I have tried to be detailed in this portion of the shepherd's report instead of brief.
Please let me know if you have questions.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No - see #14 for details.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

Yes - this is linked to an optional update to RFC4271. 

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

The RFC4271 is listed in the abstract.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no automated changes.

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 6/7/2019

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
  Due to IDR multiple interoperable implementations, this draft is now resurfacing.

    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  3 implementations:
    The implementation report is at
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

    Currently there are 3 separate implementations (Cisco IOS-XR, Cisco IOS-XE, and Juniper)
    The chairs announced announced at IETF 103, interim (replacing IETF 104 meeting),
    and IETF 105 regarding the 2 cisco implementations being counted as unique.
    The WG accepted this work.

    A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  3 implementations:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

Last Shepherd report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/erF9If0OABv-K4iQFZ3U01XmOI4
with follow up:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wr_SVGr30xvEmldqleSqqaHNnp8

Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost.
Susan Hares sought out implementation reports (see email links),
review, and finalized the shepherd's review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate.  The routing-directorate reviewer
should be aware of the current implementations and if changes need to be made
indicate how implementations need to change.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

OPS directorate should review this draft as part of WG LC.
It is implemented in 2 major vendors and deployed so the
if OPS-DIR has issues, they should address how operators should handle it.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.    The security section requirements since 2009
have been increased, so the shepherd requested additional changes
to that section.  These changes have been made in -12.txt version.
Please note that the

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Rajiv Asati
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iqSdivHFPrFvdXyhN97gwjhWsZQ

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR Statements made.

(9) 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? 

Solid in 2009.  As time goes on waiting for implementation reports,
the memory of those days weakens.  However, since 2 major vendors
have implemented and deployed this RFC - the solid WG
support from 2009 has been validated.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

All documents are read for advancement.

One of the RFC reference requires additional comments
since the IESG may be revewing draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt
at the same time as this draft.

RFC5512 has been revised in draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12
due to a lack of implementation support for
the BGP SAFI.  draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt will obsolete
RFC5512.  After the IESG approves the RFC publication,
the IDR or BESS WG will prepare updates to a
group of RFCs that depend on RFC5512. 

Since this draft is implemented with RFC5512 referenced,
it is appropriate to publish it as provided by the -12.txt 

IDR alignment with IETF mantra of  "rough consensus and running code"
means that 2 implementations are required for publication.
The same will be true of the updates of draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt.

I have tried to be detailed in this portion of the shepherd's report instead of brief.
Please let me know if you have questions.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No - see #14 for details.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

Yes - this is linked to an optional update to RFC4271. 

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

The RFC4271 is listed in the abstract.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no automated changes.

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 6/7/2019

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
  Due to IDR multiple interoperable implementations, this draft is now resurfacing.

    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  3 implementations:
    The implementation report is at
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

    Currently there are 3 separate implementations (Cisco IOS-XR, Cisco IOS-XE, and Juniper)
    The chairs announced announced at IETF 103, interim (replacing IETF 104 meeting),
    and IETF 105 regarding the 2 cisco implementations being counted as unique.
    The WG accepted this work.

    A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  3 implementations:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

Last Shepherd report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/erF9If0OABv-K4iQFZ3U01XmOI4
with follow up:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wr_SVGr30xvEmldqleSqqaHNnp8

Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost.
Susan Hares sought out implementation reports (see email links),
review, and finalized the shepherd's review.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate.  The routing-directorate reviewer
should be aware of the current implementations, and if changes need to be made
indicate how implementations need to change.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

OPS directorate should review this draft as part of WG LC.
It is implemented in 2 major vendors and deployed so the
if OPS-DIR has issues, they should address how operators should handle it.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.    The security section requirements since 2009
have been increased, so the shepherd requested additional changes
to that section.  These changes have been made in -12.txt version.
Please note that the

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Rajiv Asati
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iqSdivHFPrFvdXyhN97gwjhWsZQ

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR Statements made.

(9) 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? 

Solid in 2009.  As time goes on waiting for implementation reports,
the memory of those days weakens.  However, since 2 major vendors
have implemented and deployed this RFC - the solid WG
support from 2009 has been validated.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

All documents are read for advancement.

The RFC5512 has been revised in draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12
due to a lack of implementation support for
the BGP SAFI.  draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt will obsolete
RFC5512.  After the IESG approves the RFC publication,
the IDR or BESS WG will prepare updates to a
group of RFCs that depend on that RFC.

Since this draft is implemented with RFC5512 referenced,
it is appropriate to publish it as provided by the text.

IDR alignment with IETF mantra of  "rough consensus and running code"
means that 2 implementations are required for publication.
The same will be true of the updates of draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps-12.txt.

I have tried to be detailed in this portion of the shepherd's report instead of brief.
Please let me know if you have questions.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No - see #14 for details.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

No.  This only optionally augments the BGP next hop resolution
in the base BGP specification (RFC4271) to active paths. 

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

The RFC4271 is listed in the abstract.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no automated changes.

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 6/7/2019

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
  Due to IDR multiple interoperable implementations, this draft is now resurfacing.

    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  3 implementations:
    The implementation report is at
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

    Currently there are 3 separate implementations (Cisco IOS-XR, Cisco IOS-XE, and Juniper)
    The chairs announced announced at IETF 103, interim (replacing IETF 104 meeting),
    and IETF 105 regarding the 2 cisco implementations being counted as unique.
    The WG accepted this work.

    A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  3 implementations:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

Last Shepherd report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/erF9If0OABv-K4iQFZ3U01XmOI4
with follow up:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wr_SVGr30xvEmldqleSqqaHNnp8

Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost.
Susan Hares sought out implementation reports (see email links),
review

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate in October 2018.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

OPS directorate should review this draft as part of WG LC.
It is implemented in 2 major vendors and deployed so the
if OPS-DIR has issues, they should address how operators should handle it.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.    The security section requirements since 2009
have been increased, so the shepherd requested additional changes
to that section.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

[Susan Hares] have found no record of IPR statements for this draft.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Rajiv Asati
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iqSdivHFPrFvdXyhN97gwjhWsZQ

(9) 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? 

Solid in 2009.  As time goes on waiting for implementation reports,
the memory of those days weakens.  However, since 2 major vendors
have implemented and deployed this RFC - the solid WG
support from 2009 has been validated.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

The RFC5512 has been revised in draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps
due to a lack of implementation support for
the BGP SAFI. 

[add text after -12.txt is submitted, fix this portion]

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

No.  This only optionally augments the BGP next hop resolution
in the base BGP specification (RFC4271) to active paths. 

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

The RFC4271 is listed in the abstract.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no automated changes.

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 6/3/2019 - awaiting version 12 with security section update, then fix section 14.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
  Due to IDR multiple interoperable implementations, this draft is now resurfacing.

    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  3 implementations:
    The implementation report is at
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

    Currently there are 3 separate implementations (Cisco IOS-XR, Cisco IOS-XE, and Juniper)
    The chairs announced announced at IETF 103, interim (replacing IETF 104 meeting),
    and IETF 105 regarding the 2 cisco implementations being counted as unique.
    The WG accepted this work.

    A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  3 implementations:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

Last Shepherd report:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/erF9If0OABv-K4iQFZ3U01XmOI4
with follow up:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wr_SVGr30xvEmldqleSqqaHNnp8

Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost.
Susan Hares sought out implementation reports (see email links),
review

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate in October 2018.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

OPS directorate should review this draft as part of WG LC.
It is implemented in 2 major vendors and deployed so the
if OPS-DIR has issues, they should address how operators should handle it.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.    The security section requirements since 2009
have been increased, so the shepherd requested additional changes
to that section.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

[Susan Hares] have found no record of IPR statements for this draft.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Rajiv Asati
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iqSdivHFPrFvdXyhN97gwjhWsZQ

(9) 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? 

Solid in 2009.  As time goes on waiting for implementation reports,
the memory of those days weakens.  However, since 2 major vendors
have implemented and deployed this RFC - the solid WG
support from 2009 has been validated.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

The RFC5512 has been revised in draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps
due to a lack of implementation support for
the BGP SAFI. 

[add text after -12.txt is submitted, fix this portion]

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

No.  This only optionally augments the BGP next hop resolution
in the base BGP specification (RFC4271) to active paths. 

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

The RFC4271 is listed in the abstract.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no automated changes.

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 6/3/2019 - awaiting version 12 with security section update, then fix section 14.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
  Due to IDR multiple interoperable implementations, this draft is now resurfacing.

    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  3 implementations:
    The implementation report is at
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria

    Currently there are 3 separate implementations (Cisco IOS-XR, Cisco IOS-XE, and Juniper)
    The chairs announced announced at IETF 103, interim (replacing IETF 104 meeting),
    and IETF 105 regarding the 2 cisco implementations being counted as unique.
    The WG accepted this work.

    A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  3 implementations:
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria


Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost.
Susan Hares sought out implementation reports (see email links),
review

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate in October 2018.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

OPS directorate should review this draft as part of WG LC.
It is implemented in 2 major vendors and deployed so the
if OPS-DIR has issues, they should address how operators should handle it.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.    The security section requirements since 2009
have been increased, so the shepherd requested additional changes
to that section.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

[Susan Hares] have found no record of IPR statements for this draft.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

Rajiv Asati
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iqSdivHFPrFvdXyhN97gwjhWsZQ

(9) 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? 

Solid in 2009.  As time goes on waiting for implementation reports,
the memory of those days weakens.  However, since 2 major vendors
have implemented and deployed this RFC - the solid WG
support from 2009 has been validated.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

Nope.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

not needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

The RFC5512 has been revised in draft-ietf-tunnel-encaps
due to a lack of implementation support for
the BGP SAFI. 

[add text after -12.txt is submitted, fix this portion]

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?

No.  This only optionally augments the BGP next hop resolution
in the base BGP specification (RFC4271) to active paths. 

Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

The RFC4271 is listed in the abstract.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

none required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

no automated changes.

Write-up-version: 2/24/2012
status: 10/26/2018

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? 

Proposed standard

(2) 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

  BGP specification [RFC4271] prescribes 'BGP next-hop reachability'
  as one of the key 'Route Resolvability Condition' that must be
  satisfied before the BGP bestpath candidate selection. This
  condition, however, may not be sufficient (as explained in the
  Appendix section) and desire further granularity.

  This document defines enhances the "Route Resolvability Condition"
  to facilitate the next-hop to be resolved in the chosen data plane.

Working Group Summary
  The chairs/shepherds lost this draft.
    It was approved 9 years ago and there was not an implementation of the draft.
    One reminder was here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yQKUi3SR3IPPPEWUzi2O55v6-v0

  A question was indicated because it updates RFC4271 on the following:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/okJNyUYoXgGc7tKun_QhUuy9GZ4

  Initial Draft adoption:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mW8ALqoY0U-1KVaNNjgn-nSq3qQ

WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VyT0mdLcbDaq4NZ-48Dnentn-b0

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria


  Have a  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? 
 
  No

Personnel
  original document shepherd: John Scudder
  current document Shepherd: Susan Hares
  responsible AD: Alvaro Retana


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

John Scudder worked on this draft 6 years ago, but got lost in a shpeher.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

A current routing directorate review has not been made of this draft due to its age.
It will be sent through routing-directorate in October 2018.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

BGP operators should review this draft. 
This draft will be sent to grows for a review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? 

This draft passed WG LC in 2009, but it has been waiting for
implementations.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

[Susan Hares] have found no record of IPR statements for this draft.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

(9) 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? 

(10) 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 publicly available.)

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.


(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.