Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures
draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-09

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss; it's not quite how I would have done it,
but the key point is clearly covered, so that's good enough for me.

[Ballot comment]
Easy to read document and while looking straightforward, I believe that Ben Kaduk and Magnus have raised a valid DISCUSS to be addressed. If section 3 content is exhaustive, then this would solve their DISCUSS probably.

Finally, https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/capability-codes.xhtml seems to indicate that there are still many code points available for first come, first use. So, perhaps no need to carve out another FCFS code points block.

Regards

-éric

[Ballot discuss]
[corrected] I mistook the IETF review policy for the content of the IESG Approval.

This is a discuss point, but I don't want the document to go forward before this discussion has concluded.

In section 3 the following statement is done:

  Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of
  all registrations, once made, is "IESG".

The IESG has discussed this and are currently of the opinion that registrations done by IETF documents should be "owned" by IETF. We are in the process of establishing an IETF consensus on this. There is currently a draft on this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations/
Reasons for this are several, consistency to intended state, making it clear that it is the IETF that owns IETF specification based registry entries, not created management bodies, thirdly one can replace the IESG with soemthing else without having to update all these registries.

Section 3.

Looking at the table. I see no explanation in this document to these entries. Still you want to add them with this document as reference. Can you please add an explanation behind the values being registered in the below table?

  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  | Value | Description                                | Reference /  |
  |      |                                            | Change      |
  |      |                                            | Controller  |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  128  | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated)    | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  129  | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering      | (this        |
  |      | (deprecated),        prestandard Routing  | document)    |
  |      | Policy Distribution (deprecated)          |              |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  130  | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering      | (this        |
  |      | (deprecated)                              | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  131  | Prestandard Multisession (deprecated)      | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  184  | Prestandard FQDN (deprecated)              | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  185  | Prestandard OPERATIONAL message            | (this        |
  |      | (deprecated)                              | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  255  | Reserved                                  | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+

[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss point, but I don't want the document to go forward before this discussion has concluded.

In section 3 the following statement is done:

  Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of
  all registrations, once made, is "IESG".

First of all, just because something is under IETF Review policy does not imply that change control of a registration entry is owned by IETF. It might be true that all current entries are established through IETF stream specifications, where it make sense that change control is owned by IETF. So I would recommend that you reformulate the note.

Secondly, the IESG has discussed this and are currently of the opinion that registrations done by IETF documents should be "owned" by IETF. We are in the process of establishing an IETF consensus on this. There is currently a draft on this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-ietf-iana-registrations/
Reasons for this are several, consistency to intended state, making it clear that it is the IETF that owns IETF specification based registry entries, not created management bodies, thirdly one can replace the IESG with soemthing else without having to update all these registries.

Section 3.

Looking at the table. I see no explanation in this document to these entries. Still you want to add them with this document as reference. Can you please add an explanation behind the values being registered in the below table?

  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  | Value | Description                                | Reference /  |
  |      |                                            | Change      |
  |      |                                            | Controller  |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  128  | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated)    | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  129  | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering      | (this        |
  |      | (deprecated),        prestandard Routing  | document)    |
  |      | Policy Distribution (deprecated)          |              |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  130  | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering      | (this        |
  |      | (deprecated)                              | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  131  | Prestandard Multisession (deprecated)      | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  184  | Prestandard FQDN (deprecated)              | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  185  | Prestandard OPERATIONAL message            | (this        |
  |      | (deprecated)                              | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+
  |  255  | Reserved                                  | (this        |
  |      |                                            | document)    |
  +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+

[Ballot comment]
Other comments have already said that the document should discuss the implementation survey that was apparently done.  I agree with that.  Otherwise, just one minor editorial nit:

— Abstract —
The word “respectively” doesn’t belong here, because there isn’t a prior list to relate the designations to (contrast this with the last sentence in the Introduction, where it is used correctly).  Just remove the word.

[Ballot comment]
I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position.  With the caveat that I don’t have a sense of existing implementations, restating Ben's concern, it seems like there should be some discussion of (or exclusion of) the possibility that someone relied on what was previously a private code point which may now be registered for others use with different semantics.

[Ballot discuss]
(Quite possibly a "discuss discuss"...)
What would the behavior be if someone was shipping an implementation that used a point in the 128-255 range
intending for the "private use" semantics, a conflicting codepoint was assigned via FCFS, and then needed to
use the feature with conflicting codepoint in that implementation?
It seems likely that we should discuss the plausibility of such scenarios and what options are available to handle it.

[Ballot comment]
This document is straight forward and easy to read and understand.  I had one minor comment.

  [RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as
  "Reserved for Private Use".  Subsequent experience has shown this to
  be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors.

It might possibly be helpful to expand this paragraph slightly.

Because what was once "Reserved for Private Use" is now being reclassified to something non private, I presume that there are no BGP implementations using these capability codes that could be broken by this reclassification.  Hence, on the assumption that these codes are not in fact being used for private use, it might be helpful to state that in order to help justify why it is okay to make this change.

[Ballot comment]
In section 3, it would be nice to have a sentence about the motivation for the new registry entries.

Should 255 be in table 1 as well as table 2?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

First, in the Capability Codes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/

the registration procedures for the registry will be changed from:

Range Procedure Note
1-63 IETF Review
64-127 First Come First Served
128-255 Reserved for Private Use IANA does not assign

to:

Range Procedure Note
1-63 IETF Review
64-238 First Come First Served
239-254 Experimental

The reference for the registry will be changed from [RFC5492] to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, also in the Capability Codes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/

seven, new capability codes will be registered as follows:

Value Description Reference
-----+-----------------------------------------+-------------
128 Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ]
129 Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering [ RFC-to-be ]
(deprecated), prestandard
draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-04 (deprecated)
130 Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering [ RFC-to-be ]
(deprecated)
131 Prestandard Multisession (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ]
184 Prestandard FQDN (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ]
185 OPERATIONAL message (deprecated) [ RFC-to-be ]
[draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00]
255 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands 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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Susan Hares , shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Revision to Capability Codes Registration
Procedures'
  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 2020-04-30. 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 updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
  procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
  formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
  new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
  "Experimental Use" and "Reserved".




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/ballot/


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

Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures.

(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

  This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
  procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
  formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
  new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
  "Experimental" and "Reserved".

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?
No controversy on this list.

Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response.
The call was extended to

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY

Document Quality

  Document is a change to registration procedures.
  Early IANA QA review will be done.
  Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) .

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares
  Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana
  Early RTG-DIR review:  Chris Hopps - ready

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

IANA review:  [IANA #1151764]  from the email
We have reviewed the latest version of this document.
Since part of the registry will be First Come First Served, we'll be adding a change controller column, per RFC 8126.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Thanks, Sabrina


3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list
at version -01:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
at version-02:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk
at version -04:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8
at version -05:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VKRKzX-mArttzQ9sQB2Td3m2HBA

Resolved RTG-DIR in -05.txt

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in
RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255.
A comparison of new and old procedures is below:

                  Registration    Registration
Range      RFC5492          draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
=====      ===========  ===================================
1-63          IETF Review    IETF review
64-127      FCFS                  FCFS
127-238    Private use      FCFS
239-254    Private use      Experimental

The reason for the change is specified in the introduction.
The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126
allocation policies in Section 4.1.

Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations
and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a
single number for further expansion. 

(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? 

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.

John Scudder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM

(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? 

Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light.
It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone
seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures
since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No Nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

yes - RFC5492.

(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).

This document revises IANA procedures for:
"Capability Codes" registry in the
  "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters.

This is an existing registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No Expert review in the registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No automated checks outside of NITs.

Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures.

(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

  This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
  procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
  formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
  new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
  "Experimental" and "Reserved".

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?
No controversy on this list.

Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response.
The call was extended to

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY

Document Quality

  Document is a change to registration procedures.
  Early IANA QA review will be done.
  Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) .

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares
  Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana
  Early RTG-DIR review:  Chris Hopps - ready

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

IANA review:  [IANA #1151764]  from the email
We have reviewed the latest version of this document.
Since part of the registry will be First Come First Served, we'll be adding a change controller column, per RFC 8126.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Thanks, Sabrina


3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list
at version -01:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
at version-02:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk
at version -04:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8
at version -05:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VKRKzX-mArttzQ9sQB2Td3m2HBA

Resolved RTG-DIR in -05.txt

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in
RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255.
A comparison of new and old procedures is below:

                  Registration    Registration
Range      RFC5492          draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
=====      ===========  ===================================
1-63          IETF Review    IETF review
64-127      FCFS                  FCFS
127-238    Private use      FCFS
239-254    Private use      Experimental

The reason for the change is specified in the introduction.
The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126
allocation policies in Section 4.1.

Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations
and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a
single number for further expansion. 

(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? 

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.

John Scudder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM

(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? 

Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light.
It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone
seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures
since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No Nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

yes - RFC5492.

(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).

This document revises IANA procedures for:
"Capability Codes" registry in the
  "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters.

This is an existing registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No Expert review in the registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No automated checks outside of NITs.

Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures.

(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

  This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
  procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
  formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
  new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
  "Experimental" and "Reserved".

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?
No controversy on this list.

Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response.
The call was extended to

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY

Document Quality

  Document is a change to registration procedures.
  Early IANA QA review will be done.
  Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) .

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares
  Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana
  Early RTG-DIR review:  Chris Hopps - ready

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

IANA review:  [IANA #1151764]  from the email
We have reviewed the latest version of this document.
Since part of the registry will be First Come First Served, we'll be adding a change controller column, per RFC 8126.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
Thanks, Sabrina


3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list
at version -01:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
at version-02:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk
at version -04:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8
at version -05:
[TBD]

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

[Check after Chris Hopp's message has been responded to]
No. 

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in
RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255.
A comparison of new and old procedures is below:

                  Registration    Registration
Range      RFC5492          draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
=====      ===========  ===================================
1-63          IETF Review    IETF review
64-127      FCFS                  FCFS
127-238    Private use      FCFS
239-254    Private use      Experimental
255            Private use      Reserved

The reason for the change is specified in the introduction.
The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126
allocation policies in Section 4.1.

Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations
and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a
single number for further expansion. 

(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? 

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.

John Scudder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM

(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? 

Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light.
It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone
seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures
since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No Nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

yes - RFC5492.

(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).

This document revises IANA procedures for:
"Capability Codes" registry in the
  "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters.

This is an existing registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No Expert review in the registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No automated checks outside of NITs.

Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures.

(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

  This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
  procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
  formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
  new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
  "Experimental" and "Reserved".

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?
No controversy on this list.
Call for WG LC on list during June brought spotty response.
The call was extended to

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GkVQ0WGkH7P9cOJDdXAZrRbrz-o
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l-XCcBQapHtgqEoWpGIkh2ruvIY

Document Quality

  Document is a change to registration procedures.
  Early IANA QA review will be done.
  Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019) .

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares
  Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana
  Early RTG-DIR review:  Chris Hopps - ready

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

1) Nits -
2) Early QA Review: IANA
3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list
at version -01:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
at version-02:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9DL6Pl91-alvLLUDSeViQPvAYEk
at version -04:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/uF9d2LzOAyErCatb4c8WEGGpMs8


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
[TBD - Awaiting IANA review]

(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.

IANA Review is critical as this draft change procedures in
RFC5492 for BGP Capability Code values for values 128-255.
A comparison of new and old procedures is below:

                  Registration    Registration
Range      RFC5492          draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change
=====      ===========  ===================================
1-63          IETF Review    IETF review
64-127      FCFS                  FCFS
127-238    Private use      FCFS
239-254    Private use      Experimental
255            Private use      Reserved

The reason for the change is specified in the introduction.
The reason is this usage does not fit with RFC8126
allocation policies in Section 4.1.

Therefore, the working reconsidered the allocations
and allow a large FCFS, an experimental range, and a
single number for further expansion. 

(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? 

None
[May add additional input after IANA Review]

(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.

John Scudder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM

(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? 

Working group mail list and IETF 104-IETF 105discussion were light.
It is the opinion of the author based on the discussion that everyone
seem to agree on-list and off that we needed to revise the procedures
since RFC8126 allocation policies in Section 4.1 - no longer fit this case.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No Nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

yes - RFC5492.

(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).

This document revises IANA procedures for:
"Capability Codes" registry in the
  "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters.

This is an existing registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No Expert review in the registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No automated checks outside of NITs.

Per RFC 4858, this is the current template: 2/24/2012


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standards - changes RFC5492 registration procedures.

(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

  This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
  procedures for BGP Capability Codes.  Specifically, the range
  formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
  new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served",
  "Experimental" and "Reserved".

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?
[TBD]

Document Quality

  Document is a change to registration procedures.
  Early IANA QA review will be done.
  Public discussion of code points has been going on (2018 to 2019)

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares
  Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

1) Nits -
2) Early QA Review: IANA
3) Registry discussion occurred on mail list
[TBd]

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
[TBD]


(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.

IANA Review is critical as we change procedures.

(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? 
[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.

John Scudder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/aq7SIsGh3A0VMPZP287kzklPnxM

(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? 

[TBD]

(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.)
[TBD]

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No Nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

yes - RFC5492.

(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).

This document revises IANA procedures for:
"Capability Codes" registry in the
  "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters.

This is an existing registry.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No Expert review in the registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No automated checks outside of NITs.