Shepherd writeup
rfc8654-36

Status:  Ready for AD Evaluation

AD: Alvaro Retano 
Shepherd: Susan Hares
WG chairs: Susan Hares, John Scudder  

 
1) RFC type: Proposed Standard
Note: this updates RFC 4271 (The Base BGP specification) 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Technical Summary

   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
 The working had had 3 WG LCs over 3 years.
 All of these WG LC indicated some support, but concerns about specific language.  
 The last WG LC (2019)  has resolved all issues on this draft: 
 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Y4Q801vvPpBlbuLhpxQKB8zXns4) 

WG members have report 4 implementations; 
(QuggaSRX, BGPSEC-IO, Open Daylight, ExaBGP) 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-implementations

The BGP additions for BGP-LS may exceed the current BGP 
messages size (4096).   Approval of this draft is important for 
allowing the BGP-LS and Segment Routing (SR) in Spring to 
continue to add more information to the BGP stream. 

Document Quality: 
Documen thas been review extensively for language.  
The current language is the result of a great deal of discussion
and WG consensus.  ADs should have a strong reason for
suggesting changes.  Each change may require review by the 
WG. 

4 implementation exist - see above.  
Status: 
WG LC1  (finished 5/24 -6/16/2016) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bDGJGIuYU71I7gAHYMRBp5106-o

Problem with version -21 - AD's suggested changes do not align with RFC4271 see: 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg17518.html

Second WG LC : (1/29/2019 to 2/15/2019) 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Y4Q801vvPpBlbuLhpxQKB8zXns4
All comments resolved.  

Personnel
 Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
 Area Director: Alvaro Retana
RTG-DIR Reviewer: Brian Weis 


(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) Long discussion (version 11 to version 30) 
   with WG, authors, chairs,  

WG LC thread for this discussion: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?gbt=1&index=Y4Q801vvPpBlbuLhpxQKB8zXns4

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

No.  We have worked through this short document 3-4 times. 
 
RTG-DIR QA review agreed to changes. 
Requesting re-review by RTG-DIR on 2/16/2017 
to clarify any extended messages.  

Asked again for check on RTG-DIR review with -30.txt (6/3/2019) 
from Brian Weis.   Responding pending. 


(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?  

no. 

(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.

Keyur Patel 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RN8TjquVmeU-LOliup8i_8kMXjo

Randy Bush:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fgI9I9G2Ve9Tm4lvD3q8A-dK5LY

David Ward: 
 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/S8lmOBH3zVpkADXEvxh6iS1LYWs

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

No IPR 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. 
Open Daylight "just did it" because their users requested. 
They report little problems with implementation. 

(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.) 

None. 

(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
thorough.

Shepherd + Jie Dong have reviewed the text and compared with the
Implementations: 
            https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-implementations

Additional Implementation from ODL (open Day light) 

(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?
Yes 

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are RFCs. 
All informative references are RFCs. 

(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. 
none 

(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).


   The IANA has made an early allocation for this new BGP Extended
   Message Capability referring to this document.
   Registry:  BGP Capability Code

   Value    Description                         Document 
   6            BGP-Extended Message  [this document] 

(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 one 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. 
Back