Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
*This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858]
Shepherd's note to AD note: Please review the security section first and
consider the issues for both CAR and CT.
## 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 history is in reverse order for ease of access.
The CAR progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki
and the IDR WG Github
wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CAR-WGLC)
github: https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues
Status
=====
Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -06.txt
[Shepherd report on Editorial issues:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/de9x2kpB8bI-kojYlYOozKNArsk/
Shepherd Report as issue lists (github)
G1- Should Fix issues: (16) [(github issue
19)](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/19): status:
fixes agreed upon, fixing in -07 G2- IANA Issues: Github issue
20](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/20), status
agreed upon, fixing in -07,
Early IANA review requested (3/12)
G3- Editorial Nits in Main text (37): Github issues 21-24 - fixing in -07
[github 21](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/21),
[github 22](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/22),
[github 23](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/23),
[github 24](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/24)
G4- Editorial Nits in Appendices: Github issue 25
[github 25](https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/25)
-fixing in -07
-------
2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024
Initial call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vnaLLq3MUuiONqfjFkpIPl9Q-Zs/
Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0z4B2QfVGmmS7EI6IFjfHccd8AY/
Directorate reviews before 2nd WG LC
RTG-DIR (by Mike McBride): status: has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/
OPS-DIR (missing)
SEC-DIR (by Yoav Nir): status: has nits [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/
TSV-DIR (by Brian Trammel): status: On the right track
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-tsvart-early-trammell-2024-01-16/
-----
Post WG LC - Interim discussion on 9/25
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)
------
1st WG LC
version: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
Email call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_6wv8MYHgMESkH3ZjVlzn14KYy8/
result: Non-consensus
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2mPRIH98LYjrnZ1t4USVij_qzKs/)
## Shepherd Report for 1st WG LC on wiki:
list of issues: [car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf](/idr/car-wg-lc-track-v7.pdf)
Shepherd's report on issues:
[car-shepherd-report](/idr/idr-shepherd-car-wglc-q1-issues-v3.pdf)
-----
Adoption call: 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads.
Part 1 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27):Informational Questions
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/
Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/27): Adoption call
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AP_ClbZgpkX6CNy7TaZiU8SMD5w/
Part 3 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/14 to 7/27) - Please note that Part 3 has a
specific format for posting.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fTFYwF54WRHcj7PDt2t7sOQg6vo/
The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/CAR-CT%20Adoption%20call%20(7/6/2022%20to%207/27/2022)
--------------------
This adoption call was preceded by the following:
Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113
IDR interim on January 24, 2022
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr)
Email Discussion before IETF-113
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/
Note: The IDR chairs agree with the summary of Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair)
posted on March 21, 2022 - that for route resolution and route
origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical, but
operationally different.
-----
Dependencies on Spring:
a) Link to Spring Individual drafts in Spring adoption queue
Link to draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03
for requirements of Intent/Color aware routing.
Note: Since these requirements were not a WG draft,
this caused CAR to have only theoretical scaling results.
Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT.
Link to Spring Individual Internet Drafts in informative text:
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13.
Spring chairs have been advised about these two drafts.
b) MPLS draft that is dead [draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07]
status is: IESG Dead.
--------
c. Dependencies with PCE
Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts.
He sent comments to the CAR authors. [need the link]
d. Dependencies with BESS:
BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts.
No direct information was received.
----------
## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd
RTG-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Ben Niven) - Issues, needs
introduction
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0X_q_e09ejtb0NZQ25smUrklwmQ/) Review
of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bgp-car-05 (Mike McBride) - status: has nits, (IDR
Shepherd is worried about the depth of type-1/type-2 review in this shepherd
review.
The shepherd may have considered it, but no comments were mentioned.)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04/
OPS-DIR reviews:
Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02 (Yingzhen Qu) - status: has issues
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02-opsdir-early-qu-2023-08-22/)
Missing Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 - [pending]
SEC-DIR reviews:
Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 (Yoav Nir) - status: has nits
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-secdir-early-nir-2023-12-19/
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Rough Adoption decision:
The IDR chairs agree with Jeff Haas's (IDR Co-chair) summary posted on March
21, 2022, that for route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR
and BGP-CT are functionally identical but operationally different.
IDR WG could not come to a consensus on CAR vs. CT. IDR Chairs elected to adopt
both CAR and CT drafts as experimental drafts. Experience in the market
place will help determine which is better operationally.
Rough 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG LC for CAR and CT found the
editors/authors/contributors of CT commenting on the CAR draft (Just as CAR
authors commented on CT draft). In some ways, this lively debate helped find
problems in the specifications.
2nd WG LC of CAR/CT: This WG LC did not have a lot of
CAR/CT editor discussions because the IDR Shepherding Chair had
a private discussion between editors prior to the 2nd WG LC.
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.)
Andrew mentioned he received feedback that there would be discomfort
if the CAR and CT do not progress to the Experimental simultaneously.
See Andrew Alston for additional details.
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)?
2 WG LC: Implementation claimed by cisco, arccus, and freertr.
Implementation report:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car
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.
Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS before 2nd WG LC.
Received reviews from PCE (Dhruv Dhody)
Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana)
The following drafts were in the option queue:
draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking-13 (validate again)
Nothing was received from BESS.
RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-05) has nits, (-02) has issues
OPS-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-02) has issues, [pending for -06]
SEC-DIR reviews: 1 early reviews - (-05) has nits
TSV-DIR review: 1 early review - (-05) on the Right Track
review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06 (3/12 request)
See github for issues for
(https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues/)
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 requirement for formal review (MIB, Yang, Media type, and URI)
A yang module for CT will be added to the list of Yang modules to create for
BGP.
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 in the document
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.
No automated checking
## 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?
Checks completed:
1) Pre-Adoption by Jeff Haas and discussion among chairs
2) Careful Adoption review resulted in a list of issues that needed to be
resolved:
(https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-CTAdoption)
3) Adoption call issues added to github for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-02
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car
4) 1st WG LC -
Prior to 1st WG LC: Shepherd verified that issues were addressed
and early Early Directorate reviews requested,
1st WG LC: Shepherd report written
(see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/CAR-WGLC and
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/issues
Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff Haas.
5) 2nd WG LC
Prior to 2nd WG LC:
a) Shepherd verified that issues raised in 1st WG LC were addressed.
b) Review provided by IDR Chair team: Jie Dong, Keyur Patel, and Jeff
Haas.
c) IDR Shepherd resoloved Technical issues - via email and meetings
d) Early reviews requested for -05 (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and
TSV-DIR)
open reviews: resolution of OPS-DIR.
d) Meeting with CAR and CT editor teams during 2nd WGLC
e) two interims in 2024 - January 29 and February 26 - review status
6) Post WG LC
a) Shepherd reports with editorial nits
b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues
c) Review issues with document editors - awaiting -07 version to check
resolution. d) IANA review of -06 requested. [pending] e) Requested the
OPS-DIR review of current version (-06 or -07) by 3/28.
7) Shepherd's final checks [-09]
a) Resolved shepherd's review (G1-xx, G2-xx, G3-xx, G4-xx in github)
b) Resolved RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, and SEC-DIR reviews (see github)
c) final NITS check
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?
Early review from TSV-DIR (Brian Trammel) confirmed the Color/Intent is on
the right track. Early review from SEC-DIR (Yoav Nir) on -05 - only NITS
(resolved, with note) Early review from OPS-DIR (Yingzhen Qu) on -08 - only
NITs (resolved) Early review from RTG-DIR (Mike McBride) on -05 - only NITs
(resolved)
SEC-DIR review of CAR looks to BGP security solutions (BGPsec and Origin
validation) to provide additional security without providing detailed
solutions. The SEC-DIR reviewer suggests this is sufficient for the
experimental draft. The shepherd notes that RFC8374 points out that BGPsec
(RFC8205) only included the AFI in the "hash" to resolve a problem (see
sections 2.2.1 and 6.2.1). Section 2.2.1 includes
the AFI/SAFI in Figure 8, but may assume only IPv4 (AFI=1) and IPv6
(AFI=2). Due to this unclear text, both BGP intent-based solutions (CAR
and CT) merely state that BGPsec could be extended. It is beyond the
scope of these individual drafts to raise the wider issue of BGPsec
applications for many new AFI/SAFIs, but falls to the IDR WG.
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?
Experimental draft. Why? IDR cannot settle on a single solution for
Intent-based (Color) routing. The top 2 solutions are forwarded as
experimental drafts to allow operational deployment to give feedback.
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.
Editors:
Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao@cisco.com)
1st WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a7B2ewERryNrT3EtO2k2hpwL_Xk/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/t9SNNGKovgouzX9JflxrF-S9JA4/
Swadesh Agrawal
swaagraw@cisco.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/nrnVIHYX7W1zwoZ4kIK9cMYJeQE/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Yf5t6UJyZvpUln9pt3L_vezA1_o/
Authors:
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pPwHlbefWf-41sd-CUCwABfncjs/
Bruno Descraene (bruno.decraene@orange.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/OJQE8kx7idm-i5S3KPSDBBZID6w/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AhkEXE1qIZKd_g6JHLUpwq-0B10/
Luay Jalil (luay.jalil@verizon.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zgaHaWz0-Zh7hDJ-bG7I4iu0heI/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/y-7xBJabNZfZIysh5dRd_8ZH93Y/
Yuanchao Su (yitai.syc@alibaba-inc.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JuoFvhFypSH7foZW9S3nq0haxMo/
Jim Uttaro (jul738@att.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_E8wLXIei3p18CgrZe1dR1dYOdU/
2nd WG LC:
Support: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UMMdvcGZo-YMLhL_WgsoyYyNKTA/
IPR: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d7RGLGREzL8cWEXG3kt4zcH9WbQ/
Jim Guichard (james.n.guichard@futurewei.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uQvAeNYnU4Tl_V8Jgr7V6iT0szs/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0xY2q4n0N6d18m3h-sUPtVL5w8Q/
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant.ietf@gmail.com)
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vH-nM56JLumbAB6JyiMJVhVVXp8/
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/
Keyur Patel - keyur@arrcus.com
1st WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zH7yZ8JY90aizrvt_UbDiW0MPb4/
2nd WG LC
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/db6ibKFpH3xlU9ZCNw5MrvHennE/
Haibo Wang
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q-mu1tej5zbt5qUVHtAs7Sq5gCw/
Jie Dong
2nd WGLC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/w37WDDhusHqheD_X7e3de-pAFE8/
Contributors:
Dirk Steinberg (Dirk@lapishills.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YWnHAeBBpXdJs6F6q_F2cG9pPZA/
Israel Means (im8327@att.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/AF9DV51BLMOirSaCRUl876e571I/
Reza Rokui (rrokui@ciena.com)
2nd WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PXo0-fRGx9ibcZHfFypVLizqZx8/
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.
Total number of editors: 2
Total number of authors: 10 (back page)
Total number of contributors: 3 [back page]
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.)
[NITS - awaits the -07 version of the draft]
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
IDR Chairs team has looked at normative versus non-normative.
[Pending] Request RTG-AD for IDR take a look at normative.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All References are RFCs or Internet Drafts.
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?
[No]
19. Will the 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 does not change any other document.
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]).
Review the IANA considerations sections with authors and [RFC8126].
Requested early IANA Review of section.
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.
Two registries are designated expert review:
a. BGP CAR NLRI Types Registry
b. BGP CAR NLRI TLV Registry
As a shepherd, I felt the review criteria in section 10.3
was not adequate. After a discussion with the authors, I decided
to ask for an early IANA Review. I will also talk to the
IANA people at IETF-119.
[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/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/
Back