As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated May 2, 2021.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested? Why is this the proper type of RFC?
Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents.
Technical Summary:
Various link attributes have been defined in link-state routing
protocols like OSPF and IS-IS in the context of the MPLS Traffic
Engineering (TE) and GMPLS. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) extensions have
been defined to distribute these attributes along with other topology
information from these link-state routing protocols. Many of these
link attributes can be used for applications other than MPLS-TE or
GMPLS.
Extensions to link-state routing protocols have been defined for such
link attributes that enable distribution of their application-
specific values. This document defines extensions to BGP-LS address-
family to enable advertisement of these application-specific
attributes as a part of the topology information from the network.
Working Group Summary:
The working group provided a normal consensus for BGP-LS drafts. This document
has also passed Rtgdir and Opsdir reviews.
Document Quality:
Implementations: 2 implementations
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr%20implementations
Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations.
WG was fine with single vendor
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Keyur Patel
Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.
This document has been through the working group review and has received and
incorporated all the necessary comments. This document has also been reviewed
by Andy Smith and Himanshu Shah as part of Rtgdir review and Scott Bradner as
part of Opsdir review.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No.
(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? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns.
(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?
Ketan Talaulikar:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_9y0FOv86CD65LISiQNlioyehCI/
Peter Psenak
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Jh7eUcNUT6whcBTi_Opy6adZYW8/
Jeff Tantsura
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/s4Hw-9cbl1zW4tN14JovVZ0H1NA/
(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?
The feedback on the document is strong from core group of BGP-LS IDR
participants.
(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.)
no conflict.
(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.
no nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
no formal review required.
(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?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
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.
No.
(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 8126).
New values in registry: "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix
Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs".
This document requests allocation of code-point 1122 for Application-specific
Link Attributes TLV from the above mentioned registries.
(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.
(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, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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
RFC8342?
No Yang modules needed.