As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
(Date: 11/1/2019)
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Type: Proposed Standard
Why: Updates RFC4271 to allow longer optional parameter field.
Draft states: Standard Track.
(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:
The Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN message as defined in the
base BGP specification are limited to 255 octets due to a one-octet
length field. BGP Capabilities are carried in this field and may
foreseeably exceed 255 octets in the future, leading to concern about
this limitation.
In this document we update RFC 4271 by extending, in a backward-
compatible manner, the length of the Optional Parameters in the BGP
OPEN. The Parameter Length field of individual Optional Parameters
is also extended.
Working Group Summary:
Work Group Support was solid for the need for
this feature in BGP.
Debate on this issues occurred over years
and concluded with a solid consensus on the solution.
Document Quality:
4 implementations exist in released code: Juniper, Nokia, BIRD, and Open
daylight.
For details of the implementation reports please see:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param%20implementations
Personnel:
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alvaro Retana
Early RTG-DIR reviewers:
1) -04.txt: Matthew Bocci - Has Issues
2) -07.txt: Joel Halpern - Ready with Nits
(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) Review of technology desired (reading document and implementation report)
2) Shepherd review sent a suggestion to update to security section.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-NJotd8_5TFgJ_kSdcKI-mQim8/
The shepherd does not believe that any well written implementation
will have a security issue. The issue is not the implementation or the
technology, the issue will be whether the security reviewers understand
that the carefully written specification is written to adhere to
best practices for BGP implementations. BGP implementations carefully
handle buffer overruns in OPENs and the components of OPENS.
The normally cavalier statement of "No additional security constraints"
is the appropriate statement for this document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
Why I am sure:
a) 4 implementations - 2 of which are open code bases.
b) The review of technology over multiple years by key experts.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns. This addition to BGP is needed.
(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/WKxh-d5zyZfOvxpCmNz6pd-aXL8/
Enke Chen:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/s-H6xR9HiCvWNN_LW9kknAQcAK4/
(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?
Solid. This WG draft was approved with solid agreement
and then it waited for implementations.
4 implementations have been created.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal criteria reviews required.
(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 downref RFCs referenced.
(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.
It changes RFC4271. This is noted on the front page.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.
IANA has given an early code asignment of code 255 in BGP OPEN optional
parameter types registry for Extended Length type code. See
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-11
The shepherd notes this is correct.
(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 requirement.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
No formal language.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342?
No yang module.