BGP Classful Transport Planes
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-31
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-17
|
31 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) Check on Updates for … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) Check on Updates for RFC9012 ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: Authors resolved in -30, except for NIT email link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fYulGchhf6oWPWhVWHxqx6WNupI/ github: assigned github issue #69 github link:https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69 Status: Shepherd awaiting clarification email (sent 4/9), but no response as of 4/17. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - On the Right Track. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/hml_nr-BAbzXk7RnKCCy-EVXLuw/ TSV-DIR: From the viewpoint of the transport area, there are two important points that need to be discussed when considering such tunnels: - MTU problems if the tunnel configurations differ - DSCP issues if DSPC is used to provide non-best effort services. Status: -30 contained fixes for TSV-DIR, but no 2nd review. (change on 3/18). Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: CT updated based on feedback (missing link in IDR Mail) Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ 2nd WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Uh39xPb20FTsmORAjgRlce8bwfc/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-04-17
|
31 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) link to Dhruv's review … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts (need to dig) 2) Waiting response on SecDir review of -30 (sent 4/9) 3) Check on Updates for RFC9012 ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: Authors resolved in -30, except for NIT email link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fYulGchhf6oWPWhVWHxqx6WNupI/ github: assigned github issue #69 github link:https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69 Status: Shepherd awaiting clarification email (sent 4/9), but no response as of 4/17. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - On the Right Track. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/hml_nr-BAbzXk7RnKCCy-EVXLuw/ TSV-DIR: From the viewpoint of the transport area, there are two important points that need to be discussed when considering such tunnels: - MTU problems if the tunnel configurations differ - DSCP issues if DSPC is used to provide non-best effort services. Status: -30 contained fixes for TSV-DIR, but no 2nd review. (change on 3/18). Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: CT updated based on feedback (missing link in IDR Mail) Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ 2nd WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Uh39xPb20FTsmORAjgRlce8bwfc/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-04-17
|
31 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) link to Dhruv's review … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts (need to dig) 2) Waiting response on SecDir review of -30 (sent 4/9) 3) Check on Updates for RFC9012 ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Authors resolved in -30, except for NIT email link: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fYulGchhf6oWPWhVWHxqx6WNupI/ github: assigned github issue #69 github link:https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69 Status: Shepherd awaiting clarification email (sent 4/9), but no response as of 4/17. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ 2nd WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Uh39xPb20FTsmORAjgRlce8bwfc/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-04-11
|
31 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-31.txt |
2024-04-11
|
31 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-04-11
|
31 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-11
|
30 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) link to Dhruv's review … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts (need to dig) 2) Waiting response on SecDir review of -30 (sent 4/9) 3) Check on Updates for RFC9012 ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ 2nd WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Uh39xPb20FTsmORAjgRlce8bwfc/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-04-07
|
30 | Magnus Nyström | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-04-07
|
30 | Magnus Nyström | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. |
2024-03-30
|
30 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nyström |
2024-03-20
|
30 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2024-03-20
|
30 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 3) link to Dhruv's review … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Ask for SecDir review of -30 ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ 2nd WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Uh39xPb20FTsmORAjgRlce8bwfc/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-20
|
30 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 3) link to Dhruv's review … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Resolve SEC-DIR issues (github issue 69) 5) Pending Early Directorate reviews: IANA (github issue 63) and TSV-DIR review 6) Check on nits issues (github issue 70) ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ 2nd WG LC https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Uh39xPb20FTsmORAjgRlce8bwfc/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-17
|
30 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-30.txt |
2024-03-17
|
30 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-03-17
|
30 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-17
|
29 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-29.txt |
2024-03-17
|
29 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-03-17
|
29 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-16
|
28 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-28.txt |
2024-03-16
|
28 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-03-16
|
28 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-13
|
27 | Olivier Bonaventure | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Olivier Bonaventure. Sent review to list. |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu - IPR statement for -27, Gyan statement on IPR 2) Implementation report clarified - where SRv6 is concerned. 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Resolve SEC-DIR issues (github issue 69) 5) Pending Early Directorate reviews: IANA (github issue 63) and TSV-DIR review 6) Check on nits issues (github issue 70) 7) Ask RTG-AD for normative/non-normative check. ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rJC4O726QqUoDEqFTffOF9EvX_U/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu - IPR statement for -27, Gyan statement on IPR 2) Implementation report clarified - where SRv6 is concerned. 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Resolve SEC-DIR issues (github issue 69) 5) Pending Early Directorate reviews: IANA (github issue 63) and TSV-DIR review 6) Check on nits issues (github issue 70) 7) Ask RTG-AD for normative/non-normative check. ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu - IPR statement for -27, Gyan statement on IPR 2) Implementation report clarified - where SRv6 is concerned. 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Resolve SEC-DIR issues (github issue 69) 5) Pending Early Directorate reviews: IANA (github issue 63) and TSV-DIR review 6) Check on nits issues (github issue 70) 7) Ask RTG-AD for normative/non-normative check. ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu - IPR statement for -27, Gyan statement on IPR 2) implementation report for CT-SRv6 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Resolve SEC-DIR issues (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) 5) Pending: IANA and TSV-DIR review ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: 1) IPR - Xiahou Xu - IPR statement for -27, Gyan statement on IPR 2) implementation report for CT-SRv6 3) link to Dhruv's review of CT drafts 4) Resolve SEC-DIR issues (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) 5) Pending: IANA and TSV-DIR review ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-18) "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - (-19) 6 problems + 4 questions (must be resolved) TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -03 Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eh3IdjyMjJVQSwOx2CD95iKg1-4/ CoAuthors: Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ei8WY3sVYAhnECr1w40Y8C5zQ-Y/ Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSxyfq98238jOIllMgIrBF54aeg/ Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [2nd WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FWf7jsy7mFJDiW3stAWeJ_DU0oU/ Contributors: Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SfJQVDClw7y8vXYoG8wlLKRgyLQ/ Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4T2BDGnaZUmtWUPjFVIOAFL-ZoI/ Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/M1c3trnvMiVn3_QQU9FqbkuvHA0/ Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lhBotT08JzICX-uPUfhMUSA7uzc/ Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [from 1st WG LC] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DBuobWpmj_ce0IOUWDTZU7m095E/ Contributor for [-12] missing in [-27] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) - dropped as of [-11] before 1st WG LC. Missing IPR statement. 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. 2 editors on front page. All IPR statements good for -27 except for Xiahou Xu. issue with Gyan Mishra - no longer contributor after -11 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.) [pending] NITS - see github reference (see https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/70) - 2 lines over 72 length, but it seems the tools. -(2477): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding -(2501): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. Each of IDR chairs have walked through Normative and Informative references. [Pending - Asking for RTG-AD (John Scudder) to do early review on normative/non-normative references. ] Note: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 references an informative reference: BGP-CT-UPDATE-PACKING-TEST] which is a document on the IETF IDR WG Github. Read access is allowed for all. see: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/1a75d4d10d4df0f1fd7dcc041c2c868704b092c7/update-packing-test-results.txt 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 normative references are freely available and published RFCs. See comment above regarding 1 informative reference at IETF IDR WG github.; 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? There are no normative references that are not at RFC level. Informative references are RFCs, drafts, or one github reference (see #15 above). 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No 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? not applicable. If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.- not applicable. 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. yes, confirmed Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Yes, confirmed. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). yes, Confirmed. [pending] Due to a complexity, an early request to review IANA allocation has been sent. New registries: Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry Non-Transitive Transport Class Extended Community Sub-Types Registry BGP CT Parameters 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. No IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review are listed in this draft. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: a) implementation report for ct-srv6 … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: a) implementation report for ct-srv6 b) link to Dhruv's review of CT draft. c) ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - see above, final one "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - see above, final one "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - 6 problems + 4 questions for review - needs to be resolved. TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. IANA Early review: IANA early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27 IANA section. 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-ct-27 (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues) 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/CT-WGLC and https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/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 Chair team resolutions were made - via email and meetings of technical issues. d) Early reviews requested (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and TSV-DIR) open reviews: resolution of SEC-DIR and lack of TSV-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 [resolved] b) Shepherd report loaded into github as issues [Resolved] c) Review issues with document editors before -27 submission [Resolved] b) IANA review of -27 requested. [pending] c) github issue loaded with Security Directorate review comments 7) Current waiting status: a) Response from IANA review of -27 b) Response from SEC-DIR resolution check 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? See Early Review comments. For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? 3/12/2024 status: Pending resolution: SEC-DIR Early review resolution - check text + SEC-DIR Reviewer (https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/69) Pending reviews: TSV Early Review, IANA early review, IETF-119 RTG-AD discussion 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. Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Yes . 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: 2nd WG LC -26 [-27] Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: a) implementation report for ct-srv6 … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: a) implementation report for ct-srv6 b) link to Dhruv's review of CT draft. c) ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Directorate Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - see above, final one "has nits" OPS-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - see above, final one "has nits" SEC-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews - 6 problems + 4 questions for review - needs to be resolved. TSV-DIR review: 1 early review requested - no response. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: 2nd WG LC Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: a) implementation report for ct-srv6 … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Need information: a) implementation report for ct-srv6 b) link to Dhruv's review of CT draft. c) ## 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. During 2nd WG LC: Concern on Split of CT drafts into 3 drafts: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Robert Raszuk raised a Concern regarding the splitting of the CT draft into three parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). Robert objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09, so Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft was not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. ------ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 has normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. Dependencies with PCE Dhruv Dhody reviewed the interactions with PCE drafts. He sent comments to the CT authors. CT authors updated their drafts with changes. Dependencies with BESS: BESS chairs were queried about reviewing the CAR and CT drafts. No direct information was received. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. ## Reviews: (tracked by Datatracker) with comments from shepherd RTG-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09 (Med Boucadair)- status: has issues, excellent review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/aawFfvd29zERSBK4ydDDhxEQGRw Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Jonathan Hardwick) - status: has nits, good review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FLGmC0-ufqPsZpH_LmgL2eWmWhY OPS-DIR reviews: Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12 (Bo Wu) - status: Has issues, Quality: good review, 4 issues mentioned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12-opsdir-early-wu-2023-08-03/ Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (Bo Wu) - status: has nits, Quality: good review, 2nd review by the same reviewer as -12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-opsdir-early-wu-2024-01-05/ SEC-DIR Review: comments from the WG chair on SEC-DIR early review: Intent (Color) could have security issues in this draft. The service data (customer data) is being tracked by intent and placed over service quality tunnels. In one view, it is just more layering. In an alternate view, the color exposes some abstract qualities of the network. Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Issues stated: 1) Why does the definition of "new AFI/SAFI to pass routes" not change any underlying security characteristics? This should be explained better. 2) Where is it stated in the document - "Mechanisms described in this document follow a "Walled Garden" approach? This should be explained better. 3) It is stated that BGP origin validation "could" be used to "increase assurance" that information has not been falsified. Firstly, "could" does not say much to an implementer. Is this intended to be "SHOULD"? What's the risk of not using origin validation? And conversely, what assurance is given if BGP origin validation is not used (the "increased assurance" part). 4) It is stated that: "In order to mitigate the risk of the diversion of traffic from its intended destination, [the] existing BGPsec solution could be extended, and supported for this SAFI." What does "could" mean here? 5) It is also stated that "as long as filtering [and other measures] are applied diligently, "risk of [traffic diversion] is eliminated". Is this really the case? That it is entirely eliminated? 6) Not being an expert in this area, I just want to call out the following items that I ask the authors to ensure that they are covered: 1. Is there anything in here which increases the risk of dDoS attacks? 2. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks related to unintended information disclosure? 3. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to spoofing of endpoint identities etc.? 4. Do the mechanisms and constructs in this document introduce any new risks due to modification of information exchanged, e.g., between AS endpoints? Early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19 (by Magnus Nystrom)- status: has issues. Authors did not resolve -18 issues https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19-secdir-early-nystrom-2024-01-15/ Shepherd's note: Assigned github issue #69 to resolve before publication request sent to IESG. TSV-Review: (due date 3/6/2024) - no response from review Shepherd's comment for TSV-DIR: Please look at this draft from the viewpoint of having intent (color) aware customer traffic forwarded over a VPN overlay (tunnels) that forwarded over a set of intent (color) aware underlay of tunnels. Please consider the problems with tunnels in your review of this text. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: (TBD) 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: [need link] Received feedback from Spring chairs (Alvaro Retana) The following drafts were in the option queue: draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04 (ct-srv6) Nothing was received from BESS. RTG-DIR reviews: 2 early reviews 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: 2nd WG LC Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Note that some numbered items contain multiple … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR 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. Split discussions in 2nd WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ A Concern was raised by Robert Raszuk regarding the splitting of the CT draft into 3 parts (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr). He objected to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr being a WG draft. The IDR chairs felt the text was in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct since version -09. Due to Robert's concerns about being surprised as WG draft were not justified. However, it does point to the value of the IDR chairs splitting this work out of the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/29CYvVl0RnW0hJSU3il3p_cqt80/ Dependencies on Spring: a) Functional dependency - caused only theoretical scaling results Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, this WG Shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof in CT. b) Normative dependency on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids-04. There is a normative dependency on an individual draft that is waiting for adoption. The Spring chairs have been notified that IDR has a normative dependencies on draft-ietf-idr-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. ----- Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. 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.) Discomfort has been mention if the CAR and CT do not both progress to Experimental at the same time. 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)? Implementation report: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct Implementation of CT: Juniper, Freertg Implementation of CT-srv6: [need info] ## 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. Reviews requested from PCE, Spring, and BESS prior to WG LC. Received reviews from PCE: [need link] Reviews not rec 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: 2nd WG LC Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] Note that some numbered items contain multiple … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [see RFC4858 for details] 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki and the IDR github repository: ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues Post 2nd WG LC Shepherd's review of -26.txt https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7PIQx2nE0Y4d-lR7bIpTPL_TMR0/ Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ ---- 1st WG LC: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26/2023 to 7/17/2023 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ extension to 7/28: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qr8GhdlEi8viaZxOCaWii3cA51s/ Extension to 8/01: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fC--NIU7VlyOjmNJwIcsXhXFvSk/ status: No consensus reached The shepherd's write-up on this topic is available on the IDR wiki https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/CT-WGLC Email message notifying the WG of 1 WG LC Shepherd's report: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/klBUhMe9AsdflYhIYVEhSIps_lg/ --------- Adoption call results: (as part of status) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0V6pBTQyCmh3t3h9cMqxZ3N0s7Q/ Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 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 CAR commenting on the CT draft (Just as CT authors commented on CAR draft). In some ways, this lively debate helped find problems in the specifications. Dependencies on Spring: a) Due to a lack of adoption of the Spring Requirements document draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-03, the WG shepherd allowed the scaling results to be theoretical without proof. Alternatives for SRv6 without CAR or CT. A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted as an informational draft. This informational draft provides a way to encode intent for SRv6 by operational practices rather than a new protocol. 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.) Discomfort has been mention if the CAR and CT do not both progress to Experimental at the same time. 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)? Implementation: Juniper Implementation ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: 2nd WG LC Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858 Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ 1st WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ status: No consensus reached 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) Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 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. 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG remained split between CAR and CT technologies. Enough editorial and technical problems were found with both CAR and CT that a 2nd WG LC was planned. An alternative draft A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted that IDR Chairs felt there were still remaining issues prior to publication in both CAR and CT Drafts. While there 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.) 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)? Implementation: Juniper Implementation ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: 2nd WG LC Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858 Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022. [RFC4858 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? The CT progression after adoption is tracked on both the IDR Wiki Summary of calls: (in reverse time order) 2nd WG LC: 2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ud2coGDvdXYy7x-SHPSK2Onwjx4/ Status: Consensus on publication of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oNY5gAcE21y1bke6tBzeb76uVo4/ 1st WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KYZbOsg2y4jcOfjV31pee5uhMjQ/ status: No consensus reached 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) Adoption call: Time: 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/ This adoption call was preceded by the following: Email Discussion before IETF-113 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/ Note: 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. Presentations from IETF-108 to IETF-113 IDR interim on January 24, 2022 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-idr-02/session/idr) 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 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. 1st WG LC of CAR/CT: The IDR WG remained split between CAR and CT technologies. Enough editorial and technical problems were found with both CAR and CT that a 2nd WG LC was planned. An alternative draft A third draft (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-00) was adopted that IDR Chairs felt there were still remaining issues prior to publication in both CAR and CT Drafts. While there 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.) 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)? Implementation: Juniper Implementation ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: 2nd WG LC Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZL7tOk3fgqeIRM5dfKfx_GbIh2w/ Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iniOhZ1BknkBhe2l8DYL5aL_lGk/ Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r09fylzRRgssJqDoQnhy66qCr-g/ Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2024-03-12
|
27 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2024-03-04
|
27 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-27.txt |
2024-03-04
|
27 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-03-04
|
27 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-20
|
26 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Olivier Bonaventure |
2024-02-20
|
26 | Magnus Westerlund | Assignment of request for Early review by TSVART to Bob Briscoe was marked no-response |
2024-02-16
|
26 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-26.txt |
2024-02-16
|
26 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-02-16
|
26 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-16
|
25 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-25.txt |
2024-02-16
|
25 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-02-16
|
25 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-16
|
24 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-24.txt |
2024-02-16
|
24 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-02-16
|
24 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-07
|
23 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2024-02-07
|
23 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Bo Wu was marked no-response |
2024-02-01
|
23 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-23.txt |
2024-02-01
|
23 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-02-01
|
23 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-26
|
22 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-22.txt |
2024-01-26
|
22 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-01-26
|
22 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-23
|
21 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-21.txt |
2024-01-23
|
21 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-01-23
|
21 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-21
|
20 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-20.txt |
2024-01-21
|
20 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2024-01-21
|
20 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-15
|
19 | Magnus Nyström | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-01-15
|
19 | Magnus Nyström | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. |
2024-01-06
|
19 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nyström |
2024-01-05
|
19 | Bo Wu | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Bo Wu. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-23
|
19 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-12-22
|
19 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-19.txt |
2023-12-22
|
19 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-12-22
|
19 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-12-21
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
2023-12-20
|
18 | Daniam Henriques | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': Completed by Jonathan Hardwick on 2023-12-18 |
2023-12-20
|
18 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Bob Briscoe |
2023-12-19
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by TSVART |
2023-12-19
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-12-19
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2023-12-19
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2023-12-19
|
19 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Magnus Nyström. |
2023-12-18
|
18 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick. |
2023-12-15
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Magnus Nystrom |
2023-12-15
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Early review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-12-15
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Nancy Cam-Winget was marked no-response |
2023-12-08
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
2023-12-04
|
18 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
2023-12-04
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-12-04
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2023-12-04
|
18 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2023-11-05
|
18 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-18.txt |
2023-11-05
|
18 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-11-05
|
18 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-20
|
17 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-17.txt |
2023-10-20
|
17 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-10-20
|
17 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-22
|
16 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-16.txt |
2023-09-22
|
16 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-09-22
|
16 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-21
|
15 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-15.txt |
2023-09-21
|
15 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-09-21
|
15 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-21
|
14 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-14.txt |
2023-08-21
|
14 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-08-21
|
14 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-14
|
13 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-13.txt |
2023-08-14
|
13 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-08-14
|
13 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-03
|
12 | Bo Wu | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Bo Wu. Sent review to list. |
2023-07-10
|
12 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-12.txt |
2023-07-10
|
12 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-07-10
|
12 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-05
|
11 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-11.txt |
2023-07-05
|
11 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-07-05
|
11 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-05
|
10 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-10.txt |
2023-07-05
|
10 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-07-05
|
10 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-05
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct | |
2023-07-05
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct | |
2023-06-30
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
2023-06-29
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Nancy Cam-Winget |
2023-06-28
|
09 | Mohamed Boucadair | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Mohamed Boucadair. Sent review to list. |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mohamed Boucadair |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-06-26
|
09 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-25
|
08 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-08.txt |
2023-06-25
|
08 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-06-25
|
08 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-20
|
07 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-07.txt |
2023-06-20
|
07 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-06-20
|
07 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-18
|
06 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-06.txt |
2023-06-18
|
06 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-06-18
|
06 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-16
|
05 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-05.txt |
2023-06-16
|
05 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-06-16
|
05 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-09
|
04 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-04.txt |
2023-06-09
|
04 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-06-09
|
04 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-09
|
03 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-03.txt |
2023-04-09
|
03 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-04-09
|
03 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-28
|
02 | Jie Dong | Added to session: IETF-116: idr Thu-0030 |
2023-03-27
|
02 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-02.txt |
2023-03-27
|
02 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-03-27
|
02 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-15
|
01 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-01.txt |
2023-02-15
|
01 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2023-02-15
|
01 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Added to session: IETF-115: idr Mon-1300 |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | # 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 … # 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? Adoption call: Adoption call for CAR was held on 7/6/2022 to 7/27/2022 in 3 mail threads. 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. 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) 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? IDR WG could not come to a consensus on CAR vs. CT. IDR Chairs elected to adopt both CAR and CT drafts as experimental. 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.) 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)? Implementation: Juniper Implementation ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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: Kaliraj Vairavakkali (kaliraj@juniper.net) Natrajan Venkataraman (natv@juniper.net) Authors: Israel Means (israel.means@att.com) [missing] Csaba Mates (ietf@nop.hu) [missing] Deepak J. Gowda (dgowda@extremenetworks.com) [missing] Balaji Rajagoplan (balajir@juniper.net) [missing] Reshma Das (dreshma@juniper.net) [missing] Rajesh M (mrajesh@juniper.net) [missing] Chaitanya Yadlapalli (cy098d@att.com) [missing] Gyan Mishra (gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com) [missing] Mazen Khaddam (mazen.khaddam@cox.com) [missing] Rafal Jan Szarecki (Google) [missing] Xiaohu Xu (Captialonline) [missing]. 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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/ |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net … Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net, shares@ndzh.com from israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-12
|
00 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2022-10-11
|
00 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to israel.means@att.com, ietf@nop.hu, dgowda@extremenetworks.com, balajir@juniper.net, dreshma@juniper.net, mrajesh@juniper.net, cy098d@att.com, gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com, mazen.khaddam@cox.com, szarecki@google.com, xiaohu.xu@capitalonline.net |
2022-09-06
|
00 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | This document now replaces draft-ietf-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes instead of None |
2022-09-06
|
00 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-00.txt |
2022-09-06
|
00 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai) |
2022-09-06
|
00 | Kaliraj Vairavakkalai | Uploaded new revision |