BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-46

[Ballot comment]
Hi Aijun, Huaimo, Ketan, Shunwan, and Changwang,

Thank you for the discussion and the changes you made [1]. These address all the points raised in my previous ballot [2]. Appreciated.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-38&url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-42&difftype=--html

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7IvUY3RdPNr9k_ixzc7uQ_QsPf0/

[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to better understand the intent of the new TLV described in Section 6.3. It says it needs to be a stable and routable IPv6 address which makes sense since there are border routers in between (unless I'm missing something):

>  The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier of the
>  remote ASBR to which the advertised Inter-AS link connects.  This can
>  be any stable, routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR.

But then the same section goes on to say that the same identifier can be link-local:

>  The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR
>  has an IPv6 address (unicast or link-local IPv6 address).

Is the idea that link-local addresses are acceptable in certain circumstances because these peers really are expected to be (or could be) on the same link? If so, this needs to be explained because while BGP-LS is in use, "remote ASBR" connected to via an "Inter-AS" link doesn't seem like this scenario would always (or ever) be on the same link. Either way, this text is technically incorrect given link-local addresses are not routable (RFC 4291, Section 2.5.6), so either the address need not be routable, or link-local are not valid, or there are multiple scenarios that require breaking down when which is required.

Related note: the use of identifier to describe the address when it is a 128 bit field (and therefore not the address's interface identifier) was misleading to me.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Roni Even for the GENART review

I support the DISCUSS positions of Éric Vyncke, Mahesh Jethanandani, and Med Boucadair

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

Thank you to IANA for clarifying my COMMENT feedback.

** Section 11
  As
  such, operators SHOULD handle this critical information in a manner
  that restricts it to the walled garden or filtering it before it
  leaves the walled garden.

When should an operator allow this information to leak outside of the administrative domain?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to both Dave Thaler and Akira Tsukamoto for their secdir reviews.

This is outside my area of expertise:
Section 11:  The term 'walled garden' is not used elsewhere in this draft (or in RFC 9552).  Is it necessary here?  I would think if it is necessary, it should be defined, and explained how it fits in with the rest of the draft.  What might be better is to explain why the Inter-AS Link NLRI and its characteristics constitute critical network information.  With respect to  protection of that information, are we talking confidentiality, integrity of that information, or something else?  And why would that information leave the administrative domain?

[Ballot comment]
A few minor comments (idnits numbers on latest version provided):

24   descriptors for the BGP-LS Inter-AS Link.  These BGP-LS extensions
25   enable network controllers to collect inter-domain interconnect
26   information and automatically compute the inter-AS network topology.

28   These extensions and procedures allow network operators to collect
29   inter-domain interconnect information and automatically compute the
30   inter-AS topology using information provided by the BGP-LS protocol.

Jim> The last two paragraphs pretty much repeat themselves. Please collapse into a single paragraph.

107   Automatically building the inter-AS view is possible when both sides
108   are upgraded to support the extensions.  The correlation depends on

Jim> Both sides of what exactly? Please be more specific.

223   - OSPF Area-ID (TLV 514) Section 5.2.1.4 of [RFC9552] MUST be
224   included only in the case of OSPF when the Inter-AS TE LSA from which
225   information is sourced is being flooded with an area scope.  It MUST
226   be not included when the LSA is flooded with AS scope.

Jim> s/MUST be not/MUST NOT

[Ballot discuss]
** For the responsible AD: RFC 7426 is an informational status document cited as a normative reference.  This document is not in the DOWNREF registry and was not called out in the IETF LC.  It requires approval from the IESG.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to  Roni Even for the GENART review

I support the DISCUSS positions of Éric Vyncke, Mahesh Jethanandani, and Med Boucadair

** Section 11
  As
  such, operators SHOULD handle this critical information in a manner
  that restricts it to the walled garden or filtering it before it
  leaves the walled garden.

When should an operator allow this information to leak outside of the administrative domain?

** Section 12.1
  IANA has allocated a codepoint for the Inter-AS Link NLRI type from
  the "BGP-LS NLRI Types" registry in the "Border Gateway Protocol –
  Link State (BGP-LS) Parameter" Group:

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Type      |  NLRI Type      |        Reference          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |      7      | Inter-AS Link NLRI|      This document 

In https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters#nlri-types, when Type=7, the NLRI Type = “Stub Link NLRI”.  Was this NLRI Type renamed since -17 of this document?

[Ballot discuss]
Section 6.2, IPv4 Remote ASBR ID / Section 6.3, IPv6 Remote ASBR ID:

314 >    be any stable, routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR.  For OSPF,
315 >    refer to Router Address TLV in [RFC3630]; for IS-IS, refer to the
316 >    IPv4 TE Router ID in [RFC9346].
317 >
318 >    The use of the TE Router ID, as specified in the Traffic Engineering
319 >    Router ID TLV [RFC9346] is RECOMMENDED.

I support Mohamed's request to add RFC5305 and RFC6119 as normative
references, and I think the reason it matters is stronger than "these are
uncited sources." RFC9346 Section 3.5 is explicit that the "Traffic
Engineering router ID TLV" and "IPv6 TE Router ID TLV" defined in RFC5305
and RFC6119 "only have area flooding scope," and that is exactly why
RFC9346 went on to define its own IPv4/IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLVs (types
11/12, carried in the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV) with domain-wide
flooding scope. The whole point of the new sub-TLV in RFC9346 was that the
RFC5305/RFC6119 value doesn't reach far enough for inter-AS purposes.

This draft's text at lines 317-318 and 340-341 names the recommended value
"the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [RFC9346]" - but that name belongs
to the RFC5305/RFC6119 object, not to RFC9346's own sub-TLV, which RFC9346
itself calls the "IPv4/IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV." An implementer who reads
the name literally and reaches for the RFC5305/RFC6119 value gets an
identifier that is scoped to a single area and may never reach the SDN
controller trying to correlate the two half-links of an inter-AS link
across IGP domains - which defeats the purpose of the whole mechanism. The
fix isn't just citing RFC5305/RFC6119; the text needs to unambiguously
point at RFC9346's own domain-wide-scope sub-TLV and stop borrowing the
name of the narrower-scope object it isn't recommending.

---

Section 5, Inter-AS Link NLRI, Identifier field:

204 >    The semantics of the "Identifier" field are the same as defined in
205 >    [RFC9552] and MUST be set to the BGP-LS Instance Identifier to
206 >    identify the IGP domain into which the information associated with
207 >    the Inter-AS link is advertised.  Therefore, the "Identifier" values
208 >    for the two half-links (refer section 5.2.2 of [RFC9552]) of the
209 >    Inter-AS link SHOULD be different depending on the configuration of
210 >    Identifiers for the two IGP domains.

I support Mohamed's DISCUSS on this one too, and want to note that Andrew
Stone flagged the same gap in his RTGDIR review of -32, three months before
this text reached the IESG, and it's still SHOULD. RFC9552 doesn't leave
this to operator discretion:

    "Unique BGP-LS Instance-IDs MUST be assigned to routing protocol
    instances operating in different IGP domains."

The Identifier field here is defined as being the BGP-LS Instance
Identifier from RFC9552, so RFC9552's MUST already governs it. Weakening
that to a document-local SHOULD doesn't just under-specify - it invites an
implementation to treat two IGP domains sharing an Identifier as
conformant, which RFC9552 says they cannot be. I'd like this raised to
MUST, or an explanation of what legitimate case the SHOULD is meant to
accommodate.

[Ballot comment]
Missing Operational Considerations:

There's no Operational Considerations section, and Tina Tsou's OPSDIR
review asked for exactly the kind of guidance draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis
would expect here: typical deployment models, the control-plane impact of
exchanging inter-AS topology at scale, and how an operator would
troubleshoot a case where the two half-links of an inter-AS link fail to
correlate at the controller. None of that made it into -38. rfc5706bis
isn't enforceable yet, so I'm not blocking on it, but I'd encourage the
authors to at least sketch an answer to Tina's questions before this goes
to the RFC Editor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may
choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were
flagged by automated tools (via
https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely
be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did
with these suggestions.

Section 5, Protocol-ID paragraph:

200 >    of the Inter-AS Link information, as specified in Section 5.2
201 >    of[RFC9552].  When the information is sourced from OSPF or IS-IS, the

s/of[RFC9552]/of [RFC9552]/

---

Section 5, Identifier paragraph:

208 >    for the two half-links (refer section 5.2.2 of [RFC9552]) of the

s/refer section 5.2.2/refer to section 5.2.2/

---

Section 5, NLRI type introduction:

171 >    This document defines a new NLRI type 7, see (Section 11) within the
172 >    BGP-LS NLRI.  The Inter-AS

s/type 7, see (Section 11)/type 7 (see Section 11)/

---

Missing space before parenthesis/bracket, several places:

373 >    - In OSPFv3 via the Inter-AS-TE-v3 LSA[RFC5392]

s/LSA[RFC5392]/LSA [RFC5392]/

381 >    the Autonomous System TLV(TLV 512), Remote AS number, IPv6 Remote

s/TLV(TLV 512)/TLV (TLV 512)/

440 >    the BGP EPE [RFC9086] solution on SB1(reports the local information

s/SB1(reports/SB1 (reports/

443 >    proposed in Section 5 of this document that pass the BGP-LS Inter-AS
444 >    NLRI on another ASBR(e.g.  SB3 in Figure 7) with 'protocol-id' set to

s/ASBR(e.g./ASBR (e.g./

459 >    o IGP Router-ID(TLV 515), and

s/Router-ID(TLV 515)/Router-ID (TLV 515)/

490 >    connection topology among the four border routers(SB1, SB3, TB2 and

s/routers(SB1/routers (SB1/

[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-38
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

### Section 6.1

What is the required behavior of the receiver when the 2 octets are not 0 in `the left (high-order) 2 octets MUST be set to 0` ?

### Section 6.3

In `If both are known, then both MUST be present.` what is the expected listener behavior ? Does it need to check ? What does it do when it is not the case ?

In `The use of the TE Router ID, as specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [RFC9346] is RECOMMENDED` when can this recommandation be ignored? Please provide the BCP14 required guidance to the implementers. (also applicable to other 'RECOMMENDED').

[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Dual-stack ;-)

Thanks for having a specification applicable to IPv4 and IPv6

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg tool to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file format ;-)

[Ballot discuss]
Hi Aijun, Huaimo, Ketan, Shunwan, and Changwang,

Thank you for the effort put into this document.

Thanks to Tina Tsou for the OPSDIR review.

Please find below some few easy-to-fix points. These are ordered following the document flow, not their importance:

# Check

CURRENT:
  Therefore, the "Identifier" values
  for the two half-links (refer section 5.2.2 of [RFC9552]) of the
  Inter-AS link SHOULD be different depending on the configuration of
  Identifiers for the two IGP domains.

RFC9552 says “Unique BGP-LS Instance-IDs MUST be assigned to routing protocol instances operating in different IGP domains.”

## Any reason why are deviating from that MUST?

## Also, which entity is responsible to enforce this behavior? I don’t think this is for a local implem, but for the operator.

# Restriction?

CURRENT:
  The "Protocol-ID" is set to the value indicating the source protocol
  of the Inter-AS Link information, as specified in Section 5.2
  of [RFC9552].  When the information is sourced from OSPF or IS-IS, the
  value MUST correspond to one of IGP values as specified in [RFC9552].

Why do we need the last sentence as that is already covered in 5.2 of 9552. I don’t think any new behavior is needed here.

Also, insisting on these specific values can be interpreted as if other values do not apply…which is not the case (as in Section 8).

Unless I’m missing something, I suggest to avoid adding confusion to the normative behavior and delete the last sentence.


# There is a tension between the MUST in the preamble and the individual bullets, especially the second one:

CURRENT:
  The
  following Sub-TLVs MUST be included as the Local Node Descriptors:

  - Autonomous System (TLV 512) [RFC9552].

  - OSPF Area-ID (TLV 514) [RFC9552] to be included only in the case of
  OSPF, when the Inter-AS TE LSA from which information is sourced is
  being flooded with an area-scope.  It is not included when the LSA is
  flooded with AS-scope.

A rewording to separate the conditional TLVs and the mandatory ones (always present) would fix this.

# Missing Normative reference to implement the following:

CURRENT:
  The
  following Sub-TLVs MUST be included as the Local Node Descriptors:
  …
  - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028
  and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured
  with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs. 

I suggest to add at least [RFC5305] and [RFC6119] as normative references.

# Which entity is supposed to enforce the following MUST? How is this different from the constraints already included in the TLV definitions?

CURRENT:
  To retrieve the Inter-AS topology,
  the Autonomous System TLV (TLV 512), Remote AS number, IPv6 Remote
  ASBR ID and/or IPv4 Remote ASBR ID MUST be presented within the
  Inter-AS Link NLRI of each Inter-AS link.

[Ballot comment]
# Several extensions are being defined

OLD: BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval

NEW: BGP-LS Extensions for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval

The change is consistent with other parts in the doc such as the following from the Abstract:

CURRENT:
  These extensions and procedures allow network operators to collect
  inter-domain interconnect information and automatically

# End-to-end Topology

This is used in several parts of the doc such as in:

CURRENT:
  end-to-end network topology using information provided by the BGP-LS
  protocol.

I really don’t part the end-to-end vs a topology. I understand there are “ends” for a path, a connection, a communication, but I fail to parse this for a topo.

Please reword.

# Generalize applicability

CURRENT:
  This document defines the Inter-AS Link NLRI and some new TLVs for
  BGP-LS to cover scenarios where an SDN controller needs to get the
  interconnection topology information between different AS domains
  when sourced from IGPs. 

The procedure is not specific to SDN Controllers. I suggest to generalize to “network controller” at least in the abstract and the introduction. SDN controllers can be listed as an example, but the applicability is more general.

# SDN Controllers

CURRENT:
  BGP-LS [RFC9552] describes the use of the BGP protocol for
  advertising Link-State topology information.  It enables applications
  such as an SDN controllers …

Please consider supplying readers with some informative references such as RFC7149 and RFC7426.

As I’m there, s/controllers/controller

# SDN Controllers again

CURRENT:
  Typically, the SDN controller can retrieve the topology

There might be multiple controllers deployed, not only one. Please update all such occurrences in the document to “an SDN controller” or “a controller”.

# IP SDN Controllers

CURRENT:
  In Figure 1, S2 (in IGP domain A) and T1 (in IGP domain B) are
  connected to the IP SDN controller via BGP-LS,

The use of “IP SDN Controller” distracts more that it helps, especially that there is no other SDN controller variants in this doc. I suggest to simplify.

# (nit) Be consistent with the conventions in RFC9552

OLD:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Identifier                          |
      |                            (64 bits)                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

NEW:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Identifier                          |
      |                            (8 octets)                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

# (nit) redundant

CURRENT:
  This document specifies the advertisement of Inter-AS Links using the
  Inter-AS Link NLRI when originating the information from the
  underlying OSPF [RFC5392] and IS-IS [RFC9346] advertisements.

This seems to be repeating what is already mentioned in the preamble. I would delete.

# (nit) add exact sections

CURRENT:
  - Link Local/Remote Identifiers (TLV 258) [RFC9552]

  - IPv4 Interface Address (TLV 259) [RFC9552]

  - IPv4 Neighbor Address (TLV 260) [RFC9552]

  - IPv6 Interface Address (TLV 261) [RFC9552]

  - IPv6 Neighbor Address (TLV 262) [RFC9552]

Please help readers with the exact section to find each of these TLVs.

# What we lose if we delete the following?

CURRENT:
  Use of any other TLVs as Local Node Descriptors or Inter-AS Link
  Descriptors may cause challenges in the correlation of the two Inter-
  AS Link NLRI half-links when the BGP-LS Producer implementations
  vary.

“any” from which list? What if a new one is defined in the future?

# Mixing configuration recommandation vs. object definition

CURRENT:
  The use of the TE Router ID, as specified in the Traffic Engineering
  Router ID TLV [RFC9346] is RECOMMENDED.

And..

  The use of the TE Router ID, as specified in the IPv6 Traffic
  Engineering Router ID TLV [RFC9346] is RECOMMENDED.

An implem will export what is available. I’m afraid we are mixing the TLV spec vs. actual operational guidance for some configuration matters. is this the place to include such recos?

# Available IPv6 address

CURRENT:
  The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR
  has an IPv6 address. 

I guess that this applies, including for link-local addresses. Maybe make that explicit in the text.

# I would group the target deployment in Sections 4 and 8 (as subsections of a deployment section). The current structure seems like Section 8 was added as an after thought.

# Maybe mention in the doc that:

• Automatically building the inter-domain view is possible when both sides are upgraded to support the extensions.
• The correlation depends on the accuracy of the information that is available to a peer vs. what is locally available in the other link head.

# FYI (i.e., no change is requested), there is ongoing effort in NMOP to build the full ISIS/OSPF topology using SIMAP. See, e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ogondio-nmop-isis-topology-01 which has argues that building…

  “… the network-wide view of the IS-IS topology enables
  multiple use cases:

  *  Network design: verifying that the actual deployed IS-IS network
      conforms to the planned design.

  *  Capacity planning.  Dimensioning or redesign of the IP
      infrastructure to satisfy target KPI metrics under existing or
      forecasted traffic demands.

  *  What-if analysis.  Estimation of the network KPIs in modified
      network situations.  For instance, failure situations, traffic
      anomaly situations, addition or deletion of new adjacencies, IGP
      weight reconfigurations, etc.

  *  Failure analysis.  Systematic and massive test of the network
      under multiple simulated failure situations, evaluating the
      network fault tolerance properties, and using mathematical models
      to derive statistical network availability metrics.”

Some of these can be facilitated by draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext.

Cheers,
Med

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG LC occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
8 individuals on the list plus five authors.
This amount of support is light to medium support for BGP-LS drafts.

Discussion also occurred after the SEC-DIR review
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/

post-Secdir issue: Most BGP-LS information comes from the IGP (OSPF or ISIS), but
some comes from local information (directly connected interfaces or
static routes) or BGP.
Resolution: Section 8 describes this use case.
Section 9 describes how a controller glues "half" links together.
No one objected to this addition on the list.

Closed WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CwlPXLGxFxXX0g5iOQtMVmMhmTY/

Queried LSR post-WG review 
One good review comment from Les Ginsberg.
Forwarded email to IDR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZuPPjv7bfWzcLoRGkDctqexRwI8/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Tp0VZGjgIQueTV8amIuwngOqgSs/

Closed with final edits Area Director (Gunter)
Discussion involves: Gunter, Aijun (main author) and Ketan (co-authors), Les (for lsr issue), and Sue Hares (shepherd)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RBuNBBc9RgLVLi38zlOCwZSzfNQ/
Chair and AD carefully negotiated changes to draft to address directorates without going into "lsr"

Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw
SEC-DIR: Reviewer: Akira Tsukamoto on -version 36.
Review result: Has Nits
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/h7H9AF8kTytXIDqmhK3vW61AzEI/

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27 - Has NITs
RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): Andrew Stone (6/5/2026) on version 32 - Has nits

Gen-DIR:
reviewer: Roni Even  on -35
Status: Ready with NITS
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8VZZr169cfYRDI4bH4t8N9UwIKY

IANA review:
REviewer: David Dong
status: Ready with IANA
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9jBOvvjFnwfVD6czUg1qw6RzETQ/

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was controversy over adding section 8, but the additional time on the list resolved the issue.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/
(see above discussion).  Please note that this issue was also discussed on the IDR list during
AD Evaluation prior to IESG evaluation.


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Two implementations:
H3C - based on H3C Comware,V700R001B75D112. Maturity level: Demo
Network controller R&D team(based on FRR, version 7.4) from China Telecom
See the implementation report at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
Note: Section 8 has no implementations.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

LSR review comment during the IDR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bcBVjMYsQy59uF_AUypf9FgjUcw/
Sent email to LSR asking for comments.

Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27
RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): Andrew Stone (6/5/2026) on version 32

for other reviews (see above).


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

No Yang module. Added to our growing list for BGP moidel.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal validation on this draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Read Text. Discussed portions with Authors. Verify OK with LSR.
Please see lengthy discussions on list.  Negotiated text with author that
does not encroach on lsr view (specification) of BGP-LS data.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This draft's review covers the BGP-LS features. While the use case in Chapter 8
may have been debated, the base function in (sections 5-7) was generally agreed upon.
All Discussions have occurred on list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard. 
  It defines a new type within BGP-LS [RFC9552] Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
  inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
  BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

See the WG LC which occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
All authors have sent an IPR statement to the IDR list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Aijun Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1d3eMpmF4oHtFBv1G9vGNzTieNM/

Huaimo Chen
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xCNxrSeh6RlKIKfwQp2k8ULIjIY/

Changwang Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zi88uCwnQhiWzL9btDEJ9yP5ek4/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TgAOjlQaSB_1LAhDIox4A9Q1Qyo/

Shunwan Zhang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oFY-Byxnz31O3rbq-bVHr5BYtjc/

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one incorrect warning:
"6 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document."

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

NO.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No - Additions to BGP-LS [RFC9552]

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

An early allocation (FCFS) for this draft.
The values match the early allocation
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
(in BGP-LS NLRI Types and BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-35. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions that we must complete.

First, in the BGP-LS NLRI Types registry in the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/

the existing registration for:

Type: 7
NRLI Type: Stub Link NLRI

will be changed to:

Type: 7
NRLI Type: inter-AS Link NLRI

and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

As this modifies a registration in an expert review registry, will initiate the required expert review via a separate ticket. This expert review must be completed before this document can be marked as IANA OK.

Second, in the BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs registry also in the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/

the existing three registrations for:

TLV Code Point: 270
Description: Remote AS Number

TLV Code Point: 271
Description: IPv4 Remote ASBR ID

TLV Code Point: 272
Description: IPv6 Remote ASBR ID

will have their references changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon†approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

Request for IETF Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2026-07-07):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology Retrieval) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'BGP-LS Extension for Inter-AS Topology
Retrieval'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2026-07-07. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the procedure for distributing Border Gateway
  Protocol-Link State (BGP-LS) key parameters for inter-domain links
  between two Autonomous Systems (ASes).  It defines a new type within
  the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
  inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
  BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.  These BGP-LS extensions enable
  Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controllers to retrieve network
  topology across inter-AS environments.

  These extensions and procedures allow network operators to collect
  inter-domain interconnect information and automatically compute the
  end-to-end network topology using information provided by the BGP-LS
  protocol.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

To Be done (Shepherd)
1) LSR response - added to section 1 (due on 6/1)
2) RTG-DIR - 2nd review (due on 6/5) section 1 and 5
2) Section 9 - updated after idr Chairs meeting (5/29)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG LC occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
8 individuals on the list plus five authors.
This amount of support is light to medium support for BGP-LS drafts.

Discussion also occurred after the SEC-DIR review
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/

issue: Most BGP-LS information comes from the IGP (OSPF or ISIS), but
some comes from local information (directly connected interfaces or
static routes) or BGP.
Resolution: Section 8 describes this use case.
Section 9 describes how a controller glues "half" links together.
No objection to this addition was made on the list.

Closed WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CwlPXLGxFxXX0g5iOQtMVmMhmTY/

Queried LSR 
One good review comment from Les Ginsberg.
forward email to IDR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZuPPjv7bfWzcLoRGkDctqexRwI8/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Tp0VZGjgIQueTV8amIuwngOqgSs/


Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27 - Has NITs

RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): Andrew Stone (6/5/2026) on version 32 - Has nits

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was controversy over the addition of section 8, but the additional time on the list resolved the issue.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/
(see above discussion).

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

two implementations:
H3C - based on H3C Comware,V700R001B75D112. Maturity level:Demo
Network controller R&D team(based on FRR, version 7.4) from China Telecom
See the implementation report at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
Note: Section 8 does not have any implementations.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

LSR review comment during the IDR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bcBVjMYsQy59uF_AUypf9FgjUcw/
Sent email to LSR asking for comments.

Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27
RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): Andrew Stone (6/5/2026) on version 32


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal validation on this draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Read Text. Discussed portions with Authors.  Verify OK with LSR.
Please see lengthy discussions on list.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This draft's review covers the BGP-LS features. While the use case in Chapter 8
may have been debated, the base function in (sections 5-7) was generally agreed upon.
All Discussions have occurred on list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard. 
  It defines a new type within BGP-LS [RFC9552] Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
  inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
  BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

See the WG LC which occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
All authors have sent an IPR statement to the IDR list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Aijun Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1d3eMpmF4oHtFBv1G9vGNzTieNM/

Huaimo Chen
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xCNxrSeh6RlKIKfwQp2k8ULIjIY/

Changwang Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zi88uCwnQhiWzL9btDEJ9yP5ek4/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TgAOjlQaSB_1LAhDIox4A9Q1Qyo/

Shunwan Zhang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oFY-Byxnz31O3rbq-bVHr5BYtjc/

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one incorrect warning:
"6 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document."

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

NO.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No - Additions to BGP-LS [RFC9552]

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

An early allocation (FCFS) for this draft.
The values match the early allocation
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
(in BGP-LS NLRI Types and BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

To Be done (Shepherd)
1) LSR response - added to section 1 (due on 6/1)
2) RTG-DIR - 2nd review (due on 6/5) section 1 and 5
2) Section 9 - updated after idr Chairs meeting (5/29)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG LC occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
8 individuals on the list plus five authors.
This amount of support is light to medium support for BGP-LS drafts.

Discussion also occurred after the SEC-DIR review
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/

issue: Most BGP-LS information comes from the IGP (OSPF or ISIS), but
some comes from local information (directly connected interfaces or
static routes) or BGP.
Resolution: Section 8 describes this use case.
Section 9 describes how a controller glues "half" links together.
No objection to this addition was made on the list.

Closed WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CwlPXLGxFxXX0g5iOQtMVmMhmTY/

Queried LSR 
One good review comment from Les Ginsberg.
forward email to IDR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZuPPjv7bfWzcLoRGkDctqexRwI8/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Tp0VZGjgIQueTV8amIuwngOqgSs/


Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27 - Has NITs

RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): Andrew Stone (6/5/2026) on version 32 - Has nits

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was controversy over the addition of section 8, but the additional time on the list resolved the issue.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/
(see above discussion).

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

two implementations:
H3C - based on H3C Comware,V700R001B75D112. Maturity level:Demo
Network controller R&D team(based on FRR, version 7.4) from China Telecom
See the implementation report at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
Note: Section 8 does not have any implementations.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

LSR review comment during the IDR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bcBVjMYsQy59uF_AUypf9FgjUcw/
Sent email to LSR asking for comments.

Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27
RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): Andrew Stone (6/5/2026) on version 32


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal validation on this draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Read Text. Discussed portions with Authors.  Verify OK with LSR.
Please see lengthy discussions on list.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This draft's review covers the BGP-LS features. While the use case in Chapter 8
may have been debated, the base function in (sections 5-7) was generally agreed upon.
All Discussions have occurred on list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard. 
  It defines a new type within BGP-LS [RFC9552] Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
  inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
  BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

See the WG LC which occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
All authors have sent an IPR statement to the IDR list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Aijun Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1d3eMpmF4oHtFBv1G9vGNzTieNM/

Huaimo Chen
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xCNxrSeh6RlKIKfwQp2k8ULIjIY/

Changwang Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zi88uCwnQhiWzL9btDEJ9yP5ek4/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TgAOjlQaSB_1LAhDIox4A9Q1Qyo/

Shunwan Zhang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oFY-Byxnz31O3rbq-bVHr5BYtjc/

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one incorrect warning:
"6 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document."

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

NO.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No - Additions to BGP-LS [RFC9552]

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

An early allocation (FCFS) for this draft.
The values match the early allocation
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
(in BGP-LS NLRI Types and BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

To Be done (Shepherd)
1) LSR response - added to section 1 (due on 6/1)
2) RTG-DIR - 2nd review (due on 6/5) section 1 and 5
2) Section 9 - updated after idr Chairs meeting (5/29)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG LC occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
8 individuals on the list plus five authors.
This amount of support is light to medium support for BGP-LS drafts.

Discussion also occurred after the SEC-DIR review
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/

issue: Most BGP-LS information comes from the IGP (OSPF or ISIS), but
some comes from local information (directly connected interfaces or
static routes) or BGP.
Resolution: Section 8 describes this use case.
Section 9 describes how a controller glues "half" links together.
No objection to this addition was made on the list.

Closed WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CwlPXLGxFxXX0g5iOQtMVmMhmTY/

Queried LSR (Just in case0:
[need LSR query]

Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27 - Has NITs

RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): ETA (6/5/2026) on version 32



2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was controversy over the addition of section 8, but the additional time on the list resolved the issue.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/
(see above discussion)


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

two implementations:
H3C - based on H3C Comware,V700R001B75D112. Maturity level:Demo
Network controller R&D team(based on FRR, version 7.4) from China Telecom
See the implementation report at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

LSR review comment during the IDR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bcBVjMYsQy59uF_AUypf9FgjUcw/
Sent email to LSR asking for comments.


Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27
RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): ETA (6/5/2026) on version 32


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal validation on this draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

[TBD] completed after IDR Chairs review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard. 
  It defines a new type within BGP-LS [RFC9552] Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
  inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
  BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

See the WG LC which occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
All authors have sent an IPR statement to the IDR list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Aijun Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1d3eMpmF4oHtFBv1G9vGNzTieNM/

Huaimo Chen
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xCNxrSeh6RlKIKfwQp2k8ULIjIY/

Changwang Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zi88uCwnQhiWzL9btDEJ9yP5ek4/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TgAOjlQaSB_1LAhDIox4A9Q1Qyo/

Shunwan Zhang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oFY-Byxnz31O3rbq-bVHr5BYtjc/

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one incorrect warning:
"There are 5 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document."

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

NO.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No - Additions to BGP-LS [RFC9552]

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

An early allocation (FCFS) for this draft.
The values match the early allocation
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
(in BGP-LS NLRI Types and BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

To Be done (Shepherd)
1) LSR response - added to section 1 (due on 6/1)
2) RTG-DIR - 2nd review (due on 6/5) secxtion 1 and 5
2) Section 9 - updated after idr Chairs meeting (5/29)

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG LC occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
8 individuals on the list plus five authors.
This amount of support is light to medium support for BGP-LS drafts.

Discussion also occurred after the SEC-DIR review
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/

issue: Most BGP-LS information comes from the IGP (OSPF or ISIS), but
some comes from local information (directly connected interfaces or
static routes) or BGP.
Resolution: Section 8 describes this use case.
Section 9 describes how a controller glues "half" links together.
No objection to this addition was made on the list.

Closed WG LC:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CwlPXLGxFxXX0g5iOQtMVmMhmTY/

Queried LSR (Just in case0:
[need LSR query]

Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27 - Has NITs

RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): ETA (6/5/2026) on version 32



2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was controversy over the addition of section 8, but the additional time on the list resolved the issue.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/g83LwkW6R88bhUNGMEUr43HtTCk/
(see above discussion)


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

two implementations:
H3C - based on H3C Comware,V700R001B75D112. Maturity level:Demo
Network controller R&D team(based on FRR, version 7.4) from China Telecom
See the implementation report at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

LSR review comment during the IDR
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bcBVjMYsQy59uF_AUypf9FgjUcw/
Sent email to LSR asking for comments.


Directorate reviews:
SEC-DIR: David Thaler - Has NITS on version 28
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEi_-Aji-AAKgN0CJggiAcmb3Xw

OPS-DIR: Tina Tsou - on version 27
RTG-DIR: (review 1): Michael Richardson on version 23
RTG-DIR: (review 2): ETA (6/5/2026) on version 32


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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 [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal validation on this draft.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

[TBD] completed after IDR Chairs review.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard. 
  It defines a new type within BGP-LS [RFC9552] Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for an
  inter-AS Link, as well as three new type-length-values (TLVs) for the
  BGP-LS inter-AS Link descriptor.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

See the WG LC which occurred on (4/20/2026 to 5/4/2026)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oxgyiUFXg5RiMEt0KKzSonuUkqg/
All authors have sent an IPR statement to the IDR list. 

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Aijun Wang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1d3eMpmF4oHtFBv1G9vGNzTieNM/

Huaimo Chen
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xCNxrSeh6RlKIKfwQp2k8ULIjIY/

Changwang Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zi88uCwnQhiWzL9btDEJ9yP5ek4/

Ketan Talaulikar
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TgAOjlQaSB_1LAhDIox4A9Q1Qyo/

Shunwan Zhang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oFY-Byxnz31O3rbq-bVHr5BYtjc/

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There is one incorrect warning:
"There are 5 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document."

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
No.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

NO.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No - Additions to BGP-LS [RFC9552]

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

An early allocation (FCFS) for this draft.
The values match the early allocation
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
(in BGP-LS NLRI Types and BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs)

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/