BGP Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD)
draft-ietf-idr-rpd-19

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Returned to working group for revisions due to dependancies on draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities - which has been returned to the working group for clarifications and clean up (see history/comments on the aforementioned document)

Returned to working group for revisions due to dependancies on draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities - which has been returned to the working group for clarifications and clean up (see history/comments on the aforementioned document)

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets by introducing new AFI/SAFI.

(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:
It is hard to adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths in a
  traditional IP network from time to time through manual
  configurations.  It is desirable to have a mechanism for setting up
  routing policies, which adjusts traffic and optimizes traffic paths
  automatically.  This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
  Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

It is difficult to optimize traffic paths in a traditional IP network
  because of the following:

  *  Complex.  Traffic can only be adjusted device by device.  The
      configurations on all the routers that the traffic traverses need
      to be changed or added.  There are already lots of policies
      configured on the routers in an operational network.  There are
      different types of policies, which include security, management
      and control policies.  These policies are relatively stable.
      However, the policies for adjusting traffic are dynamic.  Whenever
      the traffic through a route is not expected, the policies to
      adjust the traffic for that route are configured on the related
      routers.  It is complex to dynamically add or change the policies
      to the existing policies on the special routers to adjust the
      traffic.  Some people would like to separate the stable route
      policies from the dynamic ones even though they have configuration
      automation systems (including YANG models).

  *  Difficult maintenance.  The routing policies used to adjust
      network traffic are dynamic, posing difficulties to subsequent
      maintenance.  High maintenance skills are required.

  *  Slow.  Adding or changing some route policies on some routers
      through a configuration automation system for adjusting some
      traffic to avoid congestions may be slow.

  It is desirable to have an automatic mechanism for setting up routing
  policies, which can simplify routing policy configuration and be
  fast.  This document describes extensions to BGP for Routing Policy
  Distribution to resolve these issues.

Working Group Summary:
There has been a good discussion on draft coverage. The WGLC is completed.

WG process.
The WGLC is closed by WG chairs in August 2021.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PCC-2skOFrk-f06x2hUNs5dQS_0/


Document Quality:
The document quality is in good shape.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Keyur Patel

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.

This document is well written and easy to understand. It defines a new AFI/SAFI to encode and announce route policy.

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

None at the present.


(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.

No. However, there is a grow wg draft AS Path Prepending https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending that suggests imposing a limit of number of number of ASes that can be prepend. A Grow and IDE wg call is going to soliciting input for need to referencing the document. The wg call can be found at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcUBFpwU6X_PIpR7h1cas9bwYVM/.

(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.
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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets by introducing new AFI/SAFI.

(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:
It is hard to adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths in a
  traditional IP network from time to time through manual
  configurations.  It is desirable to have a mechanism for setting up
  routing policies, which adjusts traffic and optimizes traffic paths
  automatically.  This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
  Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

It is difficult to optimize traffic paths in a traditional IP network
  because of the following:

  *  Complex.  Traffic can only be adjusted device by device.  The
      configurations on all the routers that the traffic traverses need
      to be changed or added.  There are already lots of policies
      configured on the routers in an operational network.  There are
      different types of policies, which include security, management
      and control policies.  These policies are relatively stable.
      However, the policies for adjusting traffic are dynamic.  Whenever
      the traffic through a route is not expected, the policies to
      adjust the traffic for that route are configured on the related
      routers.  It is complex to dynamically add or change the policies
      to the existing policies on the special routers to adjust the
      traffic.  Some people would like to separate the stable route
      policies from the dynamic ones even though they have configuration
      automation systems (including YANG models).

  *  Difficult maintenance.  The routing policies used to adjust
      network traffic are dynamic, posing difficulties to subsequent
      maintenance.  High maintenance skills are required.

  *  Slow.  Adding or changing some route policies on some routers
      through a configuration automation system for adjusting some
      traffic to avoid congestions may be slow.

  It is desirable to have an automatic mechanism for setting up routing
  policies, which can simplify routing policy configuration and be
  fast.  This document describes extensions to BGP for Routing Policy
  Distribution to resolve these issues.

Working Group Summary:
There has been a good discussion on draft coverage. The WGLC is completed.

WG process.
The WGLC is closed by WG chairs in August 2021.

Document Quality:
The document quality is in good shape.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Keyur Patel

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.

This document is well written and easy to understand. It defines a new AFI/SAFI to encode and announce route policy.

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

None at the present.


(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.

No. However, there is a grow wg draft AS Path Prepending https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending that suggests imposing a limit of number of number of ASes that can be prepend. A Grow and IDE wg call is going to soliciting input for need to referencing the document. The wg call can be found at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcUBFpwU6X_PIpR7h1cas9bwYVM/.

(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.
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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets by introducing new AFI/SAFI.

(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:
It is hard to adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths in a
  traditional IP network from time to time through manual
  configurations.  It is desirable to have a mechanism for setting up
  routing policies, which adjusts traffic and optimizes traffic paths
  automatically.  This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
  Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

It is difficult to optimize traffic paths in a traditional IP network
  because of the following:

  *  Complex.  Traffic can only be adjusted device by device.  The
      configurations on all the routers that the traffic traverses need
      to be changed or added.  There are already lots of policies
      configured on the routers in an operational network.  There are
      different types of policies, which include security, management
      and control policies.  These policies are relatively stable.
      However, the policies for adjusting traffic are dynamic.  Whenever
      the traffic through a route is not expected, the policies to
      adjust the traffic for that route are configured on the related
      routers.  It is complex to dynamically add or change the policies
      to the existing policies on the special routers to adjust the
      traffic.  Some people would like to separate the stable route
      policies from the dynamic ones even though they have configuration
      automation systems (including YANG models).

  *  Difficult maintenance.  The routing policies used to adjust
      network traffic are dynamic, posing difficulties to subsequent
      maintenance.  High maintenance skills are required.

  *  Slow.  Adding or changing some route policies on some routers
      through a configuration automation system for adjusting some
      traffic to avoid congestions may be slow.

  It is desirable to have an automatic mechanism for setting up routing
  policies, which can simplify routing policy configuration and be
  fast.  This document describes extensions to BGP for Routing Policy
  Distribution to resolve these issues.

Working Group Summary:
There has been a good discussion on draft coverage. The WGLC is completed.

WG process.
The WGLC is closed by WG chairs in August 2021.

Document Quality:
The document quality is in good shape.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Keyur Patel

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.

This document is well written and easy to understand. It defines a new AFI/SAFI to encode and announce route policy.

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

None at the present. However, there is a grow wg draft AS Path Prepending https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending that suggests imposing a limit of number of number of ASes that can be prepend. A Grow and IDE wg call is going to soliciting input for need to referencing the document. The wg call can be found at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WcUBFpwU6X_PIpR7h1cas9bwYVM/.


(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.

No

(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.
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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets by introducing new AFI/SAFI.

(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:
It is hard to adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths in a
  traditional IP network from time to time through manual
  configurations.  It is desirable to have a mechanism for setting up
  routing policies, which adjusts traffic and optimizes traffic paths
  automatically.  This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
  Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

It is difficult to optimize traffic paths in a traditional IP network
  because of the following:

  *  Complex.  Traffic can only be adjusted device by device.  The
      configurations on all the routers that the traffic traverses need
      to be changed or added.  There are already lots of policies
      configured on the routers in an operational network.  There are
      different types of policies, which include security, management
      and control policies.  These policies are relatively stable.
      However, the policies for adjusting traffic are dynamic.  Whenever
      the traffic through a route is not expected, the policies to
      adjust the traffic for that route are configured on the related
      routers.  It is complex to dynamically add or change the policies
      to the existing policies on the special routers to adjust the
      traffic.  Some people would like to separate the stable route
      policies from the dynamic ones even though they have configuration
      automation systems (including YANG models).

  *  Difficult maintenance.  The routing policies used to adjust
      network traffic are dynamic, posing difficulties to subsequent
      maintenance.  High maintenance skills are required.

  *  Slow.  Adding or changing some route policies on some routers
      through a configuration automation system for adjusting some
      traffic to avoid congestions may be slow.

  It is desirable to have an automatic mechanism for setting up routing
  policies, which can simplify routing policy configuration and be
  fast.  This document describes extensions to BGP for Routing Policy
  Distribution to resolve these issues.

Working Group Summary:
There has been a good discussion on draft coverage. The WGLC needs to be completed.

WG process.
The WGLC is closed by WG chairs in August 2021.

Document Quality:
The document quality is in good shape.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Keyur Patel

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.

This document is well written and easy to understand. It defines a new AFI/SAFI to encode and announce route policy.

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

None at the present.

(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.

No

(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.
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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets by introducing new AFI/SAFI.

(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:
It is hard to adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths in a
  traditional IP network from time to time through manual
  configurations.  It is desirable to have a mechanism for setting up
  routing policies, which adjusts traffic and optimizes traffic paths
  automatically.  This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
  Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

It is difficult to optimize traffic paths in a traditional IP network
  because of the following:

  *  Complex.  Traffic can only be adjusted device by device.  The
      configurations on all the routers that the traffic traverses need
      to be changed or added.  There are already lots of policies
      configured on the routers in an operational network.  There are
      different types of policies, which include security, management
      and control policies.  These policies are relatively stable.
      However, the policies for adjusting traffic are dynamic.  Whenever
      the traffic through a route is not expected, the policies to
      adjust the traffic for that route are configured on the related
      routers.  It is complex to dynamically add or change the policies
      to the existing policies on the special routers to adjust the
      traffic.  Some people would like to separate the stable route
      policies from the dynamic ones even though they have configuration
      automation systems (including YANG models).

  *  Difficult maintenance.  The routing policies used to adjust
      network traffic are dynamic, posing difficulties to subsequent
      maintenance.  High maintenance skills are required.

  *  Slow.  Adding or changing some route policies on some routers
      through a configuration automation system for adjusting some
      traffic to avoid congestions may be slow.

  It is desirable to have an automatic mechanism for setting up routing
  policies, which can simplify routing policy configuration and be
  fast.  This document describes extensions to BGP for Routing Policy
  Distribution to resolve these issues.

Working Group Summary:
There has been a good discussion on draft coverage. The WGLC needs to be completed.

WG process.
The WGLC is closed by WG chairs in August 2021.

Document Quality:
The document quality is in good shape.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Keyur Patel

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.

This document is well written and easy to understand. It defines a new AFI/SAFI to encode and announce route policy.

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

None at the present.

(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.

No

(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.
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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets by introducing new AFI/SAFI.

(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:
It is hard to adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths in a
  traditional IP network from time to time through manual
  configurations.  It is desirable to have a mechanism for setting up
  routing policies, which adjusts traffic and optimizes traffic paths
  automatically.  This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
  Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

It is difficult to optimize traffic paths in a traditional IP network
  because of the following:

  *  Complex.  Traffic can only be adjusted device by device.  The
      configurations on all the routers that the traffic traverses need
      to be changed or added.  There are already lots of policies
      configured on the routers in an operational network.  There are
      different types of policies, which include security, management
      and control policies.  These policies are relatively stable.
      However, the policies for adjusting traffic are dynamic.  Whenever
      the traffic through a route is not expected, the policies to
      adjust the traffic for that route are configured on the related
      routers.  It is complex to dynamically add or change the policies
      to the existing policies on the special routers to adjust the
      traffic.  Some people would like to separate the stable route
      policies from the dynamic ones even though they have configuration
      automation systems (including YANG models).

  *  Difficult maintenance.  The routing policies used to adjust
      network traffic are dynamic, posing difficulties to subsequent
      maintenance.  High maintenance skills are required.

  *  Slow.  Adding or changing some route policies on some routers
      through a configuration automation system for adjusting some
      traffic to avoid congestions may be slow.

  It is desirable to have an automatic mechanism for setting up routing
  policies, which can simplify routing policy configuration and be
  fast.  This document describes extensions to BGP for Routing Policy
  Distribution to resolve these issues.

Working Group Summary:
[TBD]

WG process.
[TBD]
Document Quality:
[TBD]
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Keyur Patel

Who is the Responsible Area Director?
[TBD]

(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.

[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.

[TBD]


(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.
[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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gyan Mishra , Haibo Wang , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhenbin Li , Gyan Mishra , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou , Haibo Wang , Shunwan Zhuang , Yujia Luo , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Sujian Lu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Liang Ou , Zhenbin Li , Sujian Lu , Haibo Wang , Shunwan Zhuang , Gyan Mishra , Huaimo Chen , Yujia Luo , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Huaimo Chen , Zhenbin Li , Liang Ou , Haibo Wang , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Yujia Luo , Gyan Mishra , Shunwan Zhuang , Sujian Lu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yujia Luo , Sujian Lu , Zhenbin Li , Huaimo Chen , Shunwan Zhuang , Haibo Wang , Gyan Mishra , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Liang Ou

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a
new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities
atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets.

(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 describes Extensions to the BGP UPDATE message 
for Routing Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support
automatic mechanism for  setting up routing policies,
which adjust traffic and optimize traffic paths automatically.
The extension include a new AFI/SAFI and additional
changes to the atoms of the Wide Communities.
A new wide community Atom is  defined for BGP Wide
Community Target(s) TLV and new Atoms are
defined for BGP Wide Community Parameter(s) TLV. 
Thee new features are enabled by a new
BGP capability - the BGP RPD Capability.

Working Group Summary:

WG process.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

(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.

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

(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.

(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?

Lizhenbin
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CrEveZidHSEouqFFVcZNhkguJcM/

Ou Liang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1XOpoQeVPWXSZakm1BKevw2viG0/

luoyuj
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBDCXh_E3ZhlPULMfJPTP5WLfp0/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/77FboYAi9WrFqE6ULrRsfHQxzP4/

"jasonlu(陆素建)"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KJtIn8G-9XaV2NyS4rvhidU0RXQ/

Huaimo Chen  -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pMkSQ1Y0NfQKpKqkQV5o1KRiaKY/

Zhuangshunwan
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9_9E1Js94UjFWzwQrfZH4F_mo6M/


"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)"

RFC 4858, template date: 1 November 2019.

(1) Type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why appropriate:  Proposing handling of a
new AFI/SAFI along with new Wide Communities
atoms.  These changes modify BGP Update Packets.

(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:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

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?

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

(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.

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

(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.

(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?

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

(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?

(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.)

(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.

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

(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?

(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.

(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.

(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).

(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.

(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.

(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?

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Shunwan Zhuang , Huaimo Chen , Sujian Lu , Zhenbin Li , Liang Ou , Haibo Wang , Yujia Luo

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sujian Lu , Yujia Luo , Zhenbin Li , Shunwan Zhuang , Huaimo Chen , Haibo Wang , Liang Ou

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sujian Lu , Shunwan Zhuang , Zhenbin Li , Huaimo Chen , Haibo Wang , Yujia Luo , Liang Ou

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Huaimo Chen , Yujia Luo , Shunwan Zhuang , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Haibo Wang , Zhenbin Li , Liang Ou , Sujian Lu

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sujian Lu , Haibo Wang , Shunwan Zhuang , Zhenbin Li , Yujia Luo , Huaimo Chen , Liang Ou

Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Liang Ou , Zhenbin Li , Huaimo Chen , Yujia Luo , Haibo Wang , Sujian Lu , Shunwan Zhuang