(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Type: Proposed Standard
Why proper: Adds a capability to the BGP OPEN and a BGP attribute for Only to
the customer Listed in title page: 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:
Route leaks are the propagation of BGP prefixes which violate
assumptions of BGP topology relationships; e.g. passing a route
learned from one lateral peer to another lateral peer or a transit
provider, passing a route learned from one transit provider to
another transit provider or a lateral peer. Existing approaches to
leak prevention rely on marking routes by operator configuration,
with no check that the configuration corresponds to that of the eBGP
neighbor, or enforcement that the two eBGP speakers agree on the
relationship.
This document enhances BGP OPEN to establish agreement
of the (peer, customer, provider, Route Server, Route Server client)
relationship of two neighboring eBGP speakers to enforce appropriate
configuration on both sides. Propagated routes are then marked with
an Only to Customer (OTC) attribute according to the agreed
relationship, allowing both prevention and detection of route leaks.
Working Group Summary:
Route leaks are a problem that plague the operational Internet for over 20
years. The WG group consensus for this draft goes across two WGs (GROW and IDR)
with both working group lending their support to define the problem and design
a series of fixes that can be deployed in operational networks. While the
discussions have been lengthy, there is solid support between operators,
researchers, and the membesrs of 2 WGs (GROW and IDR). standardize the changs
to the OPEN and the additions of an "only to customer" (OTC) flag.
Document Quality:
The shepherd has been an active part of guiding this discussion in IDR and
grow for over 5 years. The work from NIST (Doug Montgomery and K. Sriram)
Brian Dickson, Randy Bush (IIJ, Arrcus), Keyur Patel (Arrcus), and
Alexander Azimov and Eugene Bogomazov has investigated
the technology from many angles. The operators and the authors
have word smithed in the last editions to the shepherd's
satisfaction.
Existing implementations:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy
No MIB, Yang, or Media review: none needed.
Key review: Cross-review with Grow WG that depends on this work
Reviews in Progress: RTG-IDR, OPS-DIR, and IANA early reviews called for
[requested as anticipated document will be in ADs for at least
3 weeks.]
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alvaro Retana
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd.
Review done of technology (5+ years)
Review of the write-ups and web-sites of the implementator
NITS: a) MUST NOT, b) RFC8126 must replace RFC5226
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No see above write-up for reason.
Early OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, SEC-DIR, IANA reviews done while in queue.
(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. See discussion above.
(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? Authors: Alexander Azimov
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8uUHqSwjk3AyunpqfkNdtqRL2Yg/
Eugene Bogomazon
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4261qgyVYEIWcXPFkPruT1w4Xbk/
Randy Bush
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iEeTEjuq7p4WTrSsfrfPMIilqoQ/
Keyur Patel
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/elvK3DVaNlxfEWBu66csafbjiIs/
Kotikalapudi Sriram
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tKgKf-MHP65-VhiVgYAmB3yGoNk/
Contributors:
Brian Dickson
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EOhETCY7qTEQ4zFdzukVI80Zob0/
Doug Mongomery
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q2st99-q2TA22uMuc6iJjedtVQI/
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. no
(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?
Strong consensus with broad support from operators, researches, and 2 WGs (IDR,
GROW).
The consensus is strong and it links to the following operational documents
from the Grow WG: RFC7908draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-detection-mitigation-04.txt
The problem and various idea has discussed for over 15 years.
The increasing problem makes the operators push for a resolution.
(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
(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. None needed
(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?
No changes to existing RFCs. Existing technolgooy.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.
Pre-allocation for this draft was already done:
1) capability code (value 9)
https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/capability-codes.xhtml
9 BGP Role (TEMPORARY - registered 2018-03-29, extension registered
2020-03-20, expires 2021-03-29) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy]
IETF
2) Error code
8 Role Mismatch (TEMPORARY - registered 2018-03-29, extension registered
2020-03-20, expires 2021-03-29) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy[
3) New Transitive Attribute - OTC
35 Only to Customer (OTC) (TEMPORARY - registered 2018-03-29, extension
registered 2020-03-20, expires 2021-03-29) [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy]
These allocation should be made permanent.
(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.
BGP Role Reigstry needs to be IETF Review.
(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. Only NITs needed
(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?
none