Flexible Algorithm Definition Advertisement with BGP Link-State
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-08
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2021-11-10
|
08 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-08.txt |
|
2021-11-10
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-11-10
|
08 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-08-06
|
07 | Susan Hares | 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 … 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 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested ? Proposed standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? Adds features to RFC7752 Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz. OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is performed by routers participating in the specific network in a distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS- IS flooding) through the network. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology information from the network. This draft defines extensions to BGP- LS address-family to advertise the Flexible Algorithm Definition as a part of the topology information from the network. Working Group Summary: Consensus was normal for the BGP-LS documents with the corresponding OSPF and ISIS document and implementation. Document Quality: Implementations of the protocol: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo%20implementations Personnel: Document shepherd: Jie Dong WG co-chairs: Susan Hares, Jeff Haas, Keyur Patel AD: Alvaro Retana (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The document shepherd performed the review on: 1) Nits 2) Technical review 3) Implementation report 4) IPR check The document shepherd provided the review comments on version -05 to the authors, and those comments have been resolved in version -06, thus this document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Early Reviews has been requested for RTG-DIR, and the review comments have been resolved. (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. Nothing beyond the normal checks. (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. None. (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: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HuPLM2ZJrk6J7af2x8Ue6Vu9q94/ Peter Psenak: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JofdkQ3Bv9ERv4-m7KWsCLGrChg/ Shawn Zandi: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-5sVRI69d8C6P9nRNF5CJaJ62A/ Gaurav Dawra: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EnOGHSM9U97_WyTzyUOfJdnJ9IM/ (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 disclosure. (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? This document defines the BGP-LS extensions corresponding to the IGP Flex-Algo extensions, which has been widely discussed in LSR WG, there was not much discussion about the technical part in the WG, while the consensus on the publication of this document is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? 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. None. (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 reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have 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? No, all normative references are either RFCs or WG documents which passed the WG last call. (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). IANA has allocated the following code points from the registry "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ | Code Point | Description | Length | +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ | 1039 | Flex Algorithm Definition TLV | variable | | 1040 | Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1041 | Flex Algo Include Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1042 | Flex Algo Include All Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1043 | Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV | variable | | 1044 | Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV | variable | | 1045 | Flex Algorithm Exclude SRLG sub-TLV | variable | +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ The IANA consideration section is consistent with the body of the document. One concern about the code point allocation is that both the Flex-Algo Definition TLV and its sub-TLVs are allocated with code points from this registry in parrallel. (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. None. (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. N/A (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 module. |
|
2021-08-06
|
07 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2021-08-06
|
07 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
|
2021-08-06
|
07 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-08-05
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Removed all action holders (The document is with the WG.) |
|
2021-06-08
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Returning the document to the WG: (1) some work needs to be done related to the registries, and (2) the base document (draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo) … Returning the document to the WG: (1) some work needs to be done related to the registries, and (2) the base document (draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo) is still in the lsr WG. |
|
2021-06-08
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2021-06-08
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Returning the document to the WG: (1) some work needs to be done related to the registries, and (2) the base document (draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo) … Returning the document to the WG: (1) some work needs to be done related to the registries, and (2) the base document (draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo) is still in the lsr WG. |
|
2021-06-08
|
07 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-06-08
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Publication Requested |
|
2021-06-07
|
07 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-07.txt |
|
2021-06-07
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-06-07
|
07 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | 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 … 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 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested ? Proposed standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? Adds features to RFC7752 Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz. OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is performed by routers participating in the specific network in a distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS- IS flooding) through the network. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology information from the network. This draft defines extensions to BGP- LS address-family to advertise the Flexible Algorithm Definition as a part of the topology information from the network. Working Group Summary: Consensus was normal for the BGP-LS documents with the corresponding OSPF and ISIS document and implementation. Document Quality: Implementations of the protocol: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo%20implementations Personnel: Document shepherd: Jie Dong WG co-chairs: Susan Hares, Jeff Haas, Keyur Patel AD: Alvaro Retana (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The document shepherd performed the review on: 1) Nits 2) Technical review 3) Implementation report 4) IPR check The document shepherd provided the review comments on version -05 to the authors, and those comments have been resolved in version -06, thus this document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Early Reviews has been requested for RTG-DIR, and the review comments have been resolved. (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. Nothing beyond the normal checks. (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. None. (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: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HuPLM2ZJrk6J7af2x8Ue6Vu9q94/ Peter Psenak: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JofdkQ3Bv9ERv4-m7KWsCLGrChg/ Shawn Zandi: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-5sVRI69d8C6P9nRNF5CJaJ62A/ Gaurav Dawra: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EnOGHSM9U97_WyTzyUOfJdnJ9IM/ (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 disclosure. (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? This document defines the BGP-LS extensions corresponding to the IGP Flex-Algo extensions, which has been widely discussed in LSR WG, there was not much discussion about the technical part in the WG, while the consensus on the publication of this document is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? 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. None. (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 reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have 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? No, all normative references are either RFCs or WG documents which passed the WG last call. (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). IANA has allocated the following code points from the registry "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ | Code Point | Description | Length | +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ | 1039 | Flex Algorithm Definition TLV | variable | | 1040 | Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1041 | Flex Algo Include Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1042 | Flex Algo Include All Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1043 | Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV | variable | | 1044 | Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV | variable | | 1045 | Flex Algorithm Exclude SRLG sub-TLV | variable | +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ The IANA consideration section is consistent with the body of the document. One concern about the code point allocation is that both the Flex-Algo Definition TLV and its sub-TLVs are allocated with code points from this registry in parrallel. (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. None. (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. N/A (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 module. |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2021-06-07
|
06 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2021-05-26
|
06 | Jie Dong | 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 … 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 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested ? Proposed standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? Adds features to RFC7752 Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Flexible Algorithm is a solution that allows routing protocols (viz. OSPF and IS-IS) to compute paths over a network based on user-defined (and hence, flexible) constraints and metrics. The computation is performed by routers participating in the specific network in a distribute manner using a Flex Algorithm definition. This definition provisioned on one or more routers and propagated (viz. OSPF and IS- IS flooding) through the network. BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) enables the collection of various topology information from the network. This draft defines extensions to BGP- LS address-family to advertise the Flexible Algorithm Definition as a part of the topology information from the network. Working Group Summary: Consensus was normal for the BGP-LS documents with the corresponding OSPF and ISIS document and implementation. Document Quality: Implementations of the protocol: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo%20implementations Personnel: Document shepherd: Jie Dong WG co-chairs: Susan Hares, Jeff Haas, Keyur Patel AD: Alvaro Retana (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The document shepherd performed the review on: 1) Nits 2) Technical review 3) Implementation report 4) IPR check The document shepherd provided the review comments on version -05 to the authors, and those comments have been resolved in version -06, thus this document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Early Reviews has been requested for RTG-DIR, and the review comments have been resolved. (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. Nothing beyond the normal checks. (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. None. (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: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HuPLM2ZJrk6J7af2x8Ue6Vu9q94/ Peter Psenak: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JofdkQ3Bv9ERv4-m7KWsCLGrChg/ Shawn Zandi: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-5sVRI69d8C6P9nRNF5CJaJ62A/ Gaurav Dawra: no IPR https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EnOGHSM9U97_WyTzyUOfJdnJ9IM/ (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 disclosure. (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? This document defines the BGP-LS extensions corresponding to the IGP Flex-Algo extensions, which has been widely discussed in LSR WG, there was not much discussion about the technical part in the WG, while the consensus on the publication of this document is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? 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. None. (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 reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references have 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? No, all normative references are either RFCs or WG documents which passed the WG last call. (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). IANA has allocated the following code points from the registry "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ | Code Point | Description | Length | +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ | 1039 | Flex Algorithm Definition TLV | variable | | 1040 | Flex Algo Exclude Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1041 | Flex Algo Include Any Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1042 | Flex Algo Include All Affinity sub-TLV | variable | | 1043 | Flex Algo Definition Flags sub-TLV | variable | | 1044 | Flex Algorithm Prefix Metric TLV | variable | | 1045 | Flex Algorithm Exclude SRLG sub-TLV | variable | +------------+----------------------------------------+----------+ The IANA consideration section is consistent with the body of the document. One concern about the code point allocation is that both the Flex-Algo Definition TLV and its sub-TLVs are allocated with code points from this registry in parrallel. (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. None. (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. N/A (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 module. |
|
2021-03-08
|
06 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-06.txt |
|
2021-03-08
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-03-08
|
06 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-02-05
|
05 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com, jie.dong@huawei.com from shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-02-05
|
05 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Jie Dong |
|
2021-02-05
|
05 | Susan Hares | [Jie Dong - try creating this write-up. Let me know if you need help. I've only filled in the IPR section and the reference … [Jie Dong - try creating this write-up. Let me know if you need help. I've only filled in the IPR section and the reference to implementations. Try querying the mail list and determining the consensus.] 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 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested ? Proposed standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? Adds features to RFC7752 Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary: Consensus was normal for the BGP-LS documents with OSPF and ISIS implementation. Document Quality: Implementations of the protocol: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo%20implementations Personnel: Document shepherd: Jie Dong WG co-chairs: Susan Hares, Jeff Haas, Keyur Patel AD: Alvaro Retana (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. (TBD) (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? (TBD) Early Reviews requested for RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR (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. (TBD) (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? IPR disclosures: No IPR disclosures. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/HuPLM2ZJrk6J7af2x8Ue6Vu9q94/ Peter Psenak https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/JofdkQ3Bv9ERv4-m7KWsCLGrChg/ Shawn Zandi https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-5sVRI69d8C6P9nRNF5CJaJ62A/ Gaurav Dawra https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EnOGHSM9U97_WyTzyUOfJdnJ9IM/ (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? [TBD] (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? 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. TBD (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 reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (TBD) (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? (TBD) (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. (TBd) (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). (TBD) (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. This document requests assigning code-points from the registry "BGP- LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs". All values have been given early allocation. (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. n/a (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 |
|
2020-11-18
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2020-11-16
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Andy Malis. |
|
2020-11-14
|
05 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-05.txt |
|
2020-11-14
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2020-11-14
|
05 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-04
|
04 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andy Malis |
|
2020-11-04
|
04 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andy Malis |
|
2020-11-04
|
04 | Geoff Huston | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Geoff Huston was rejected |
|
2020-11-03
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar |
|
2020-11-03
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nagendra Nainar |
|
2020-11-03
|
04 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston |
|
2020-11-03
|
04 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
|
2020-07-05
|
04 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-04.txt |
|
2020-07-05
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2020-07-05
|
04 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-05
|
03 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-03.txt |
|
2020-07-05
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2020-07-05
|
03 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-01-06
|
02 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-02.txt |
|
2020-01-06
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-01-06
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Shawn Zandi <szandi@linkedin.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ketan Talaulikar … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Shawn Zandi <szandi@linkedin.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com> |
|
2020-01-06
|
02 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-07-08
|
01 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-01.txt |
|
2019-07-08
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-08
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Shawn Zandi <szandi@linkedin.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ketan Talaulikar … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Shawn Zandi <szandi@linkedin.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com> |
|
2019-07-08
|
01 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-06-02
|
00 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo instead of None |
|
2019-06-02
|
00 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-00.txt |
|
2019-06-02
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2019-05-30
|
00 | Ketan Talaulikar | Set submitter to "Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>", replaces to draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo and sent approval email to group chairs: idr-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2019-05-30
|
00 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |