Status: Pending nit fixing
AD: Alvaro Retano
Shepherd: Susan Hares
WG chair: Susan Hares, John Scuder
Note: Shepherd does not recommend approving draft-ietf-bgp-extended-messages-21.txt.
In the shepherd's opinion (as one of co-authors of RFC4271), the changes suggested by the AD do align with RFC4271.
Please see the comments.
1) RFC type: Proposed RFC
Note: this updates RFC 4271 (The Base BGP specification)
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
The BGP specification (RFC4271) mandates a maximum BGP message size of 4096
octets. As BGP is extended to support newer AFI/SAFIs, there is a
need to extend the maximum message size beyond 4096 octets. This
document updates the bgp specification by providing an extension to BGP to extend
its current message size from 4096 octets to 65535 octets.
Working Group Summary
Implementations by 2 BGP-SEC implementations
Status: WG LC (finished 5/24 -6/16/2016)
Problem with version -21 - AD's suggested changes do not align with RFC4271 see:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
Area Director: Alvaro Retano
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.
1) IDR Nits run.
2) Read Draft for early allocation
3) considered Security section
4) Routing Directorate QA review
5) Check against implementation report.
6) Check against RFC4271 FSM - failed in version 21.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
RTG-DIR QA review agreed to changes.
Requesting re-review by RTG-DIR on 2/16/2017
to clarify any extended messages.
Shepherd feels that version 21 does not align with RFC4271 and should not be published.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization?
no. Normal reviews are fine.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of?
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
No IPR Disclosures
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
Solid consensus. John Scudder ask about the memory constraints for normal BGP implementations.
The existing implementations are for SIDR.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
Shepherd + Jie Dong have reviewed the text and compared with the
Additional Implementation from ODL on list.
Shepherd suggests that version 21 does not align with the RFC4271.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
none outside of formal review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
All normative references are RFCs.
The following Informative references are at the IESG:
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
RFC4271 - base BGP specification is updated.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
IANA request a code out of the BGP capability code registry.
Codes 1-63 require a IETF draft.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new Registries. Just new BGP capability.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
no review of automated checks required.