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-ohttps://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 RFC5492draft-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.