: 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?
Support within the Working Group Last Call was modest, but from individuals
from a wide variety of organizations. There was no dissent.
: 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
: the consensus was particularly rough?
In general, respondents to the WGLC did not offer technical feedback on
advancing this document. This document represents a long-deployed extension to
BGP implemented by several vendors.
The document shepherd raised the singular point that the multicast VPN
procedures did not seem to have implementations available. The authors chose
to remove this section from the draft. The removal of that section was not
The remainder of the shepherd's technical comments were minor and swiftly
addressed in a document update.
: 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.)
: 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 recommends) or elsewhere
There are multiple implementations, including Cisco, FRR, Juniper, and Nokia.
: 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.
This feature is localized to BGP and would not benefit from such additional scrutiny.
: 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.
: 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
: been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342?
This document does not contain a YANG module or extension to such a module.
The BGP YANG draft in IDR is intended to advance to Working Group Last Call
during 2022. Since that module covers base BGP functionality, extensions such
as this one that are not covered in the base module will need augmentation
modules in the future. The BGP YANG authors are taking specific care to permit
such augmentations in the design of the base 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.
: 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?
: 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
: reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
: and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
IDR does not currently have such a checklist.
: 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
: Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
: Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
: of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
: 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
: property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.
All disclosures have been made:
: 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.
There are four authors.
: 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
: tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
: authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
: some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
The id-nits tool was run and found no relevant errors. It currently flags the
update to RFC 6368 as not being in the abstract, but this seems to be a bug in
the detection of the Abstract section spanning more than one paragraph.
: 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
: Statement on Normative and Informative References.
The references are appropriate.
: 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
: the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
: 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
: 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
: list them.
: 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?
: 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.
Yes. This will update RFC 6368 and is correctly flagged in the document.
: 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).
The IANA section has been reviewed as part of the shepherd's WGLC review.
Several RFC 1997 BGP Communities had been previously allocated and are
appropriately referenced in the IANA registry. An additional registry that is
not currently present in IANA has been requested as part of the shepherd review
covering the "Long-lived Graceful Restart Flags for Address Family". This
additional request addresses the only open IANA Considerations issue.
: 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.
The new "Long-lived Graceful Restart Flags for Address Family" registry is
being requested as "Standards Action". The IDR Chairs would be an appropriate
Designated Expert for this registry.