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?
(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.
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
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.
Implementations: 2 implementations
Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations.
WG was fine with single vendor
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?
(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.
(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.
(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 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.)
(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.
(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?
(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?
(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.
(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.