BGP Community Container Attribute
draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-11

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrew Lange , Bruno Decraene , Jeffrey Haas , Paul Jakma , Robert Raszuk , Shane Amante , idr-chairs@ietf.org

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrew Lange , Bruno Decraene , Jeffrey Haas , Paul Jakma , Robert Raszuk , Shane Amante , idr-chairs@ietf.org

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: Standard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary:
  Route tagging plays an important role in external BGP [RFC4271]
  relations, in communicating various routing policies between peers.
  It is also a very common best practice among operators to propagate
  various additional information about routes intra-domain.  The most
  common tool used today to attach various information about routes is
  through the use of BGP communities [RFC1997].

  This document defines a new encoding which will enhance and simplify
  what can be accomplished today with the use of BGP communities.  The
  most important addition this specification makes over currently
  defined BGP communities is the ability to specify, carry as well as
  use for execution an operator's defined set of parameters.  It also
  provides an extensible platform for any new community encoding needs
  in the future.

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: The working group last call was successfully done. The draft had a good support from wg to progress further. There was a discussion of whether the "atoms" defined in the draft met the IDR implementation criteria considering most of the atoms had not been implemented, but the WG consensus indicated publication with the atoms.

Document Quality: Very good.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations but these implementations were determined to be from independent sources. The WG discussed these changed during the rpd (raft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt) draft discussion since wide communities was used for the draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt review.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mb2m9DJrTXbrkz5EnGQhuFkMqdQ/


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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.

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.

No concerns.

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dOTOx5bf4aS2aNwsNbGvxrBpEr0/
Andrew Lange
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ltLm2aT-2aLe28U-0AETFGvQ02k/
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BWHpDGtgocVqdlf2SXmSKtVi1QI/
Shawn Amante
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/12Kjce8_z3l1-lIWvx0d-RqzqDw/
Paul Jakma
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ar2LQgGOjBFwTe0VHTLsI9nJROY/

(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?

The feedback on the document is strong from the working group members.

(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 conflict.

(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.

Minor Nits were addressed in the last draft revision.

(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 review 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 (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.

No.

(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).

New values in registries:  New BGP Path attribute type.

(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.

New Registries for the following: BGP Community Container Atoms Types, BGP Community Container Neighbor Class List Atom Types, BGP Community Container Types, Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Communities Community Types,  Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Community Optional Sub-Types.

(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?

Yang Module May be needed.

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: Standard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary:
  Route tagging plays an important role in external BGP [RFC4271]
  relations, in communicating various routing policies between peers.
  It is also a very common best practice among operators to propagate
  various additional information about routes intra-domain.  The most
  common tool used today to attach various information about routes is
  through the use of BGP communities [RFC1997].

  This document defines a new encoding which will enhance and simplify
  what can be accomplished today with the use of BGP communities.  The
  most important addition this specification makes over currently
  defined BGP communities is the ability to specify, carry as well as
  use for execution an operator's defined set of parameters.  It also
  provides an extensible platform for any new community encoding needs
  in the future.

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: The working group last call was successfully done. The draft had a good support from wg to progress further. There was a discussion of whether the "atoms" defined in the draft met the IDR implementation criteria considering most of the atoms had not been implemented, but the WG consensus indicated publication with the atoms.

Document Quality: Very good.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations but these implementations were determined to be from independent sources. The WG discussed these changed during the rpd (raft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt) draft discussion since wide communities was used for the draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt review.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mb2m9DJrTXbrkz5EnGQhuFkMqdQ/


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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.

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.

No concerns.

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dOTOx5bf4aS2aNwsNbGvxrBpEr0/
Andrew Lange
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ltLm2aT-2aLe28U-0AETFGvQ02k/
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BWHpDGtgocVqdlf2SXmSKtVi1QI/
Shawn Amante
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/12Kjce8_z3l1-lIWvx0d-RqzqDw/
Paul Jakma
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ar2LQgGOjBFwTe0VHTLsI9nJROY/

(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?

The feedback on the document is strong from the working group members.

(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 conflict.

(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.

Minor nits.

(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 review 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 (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.

No.

(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).

New values in registries:  New BGP Path attribute type.

(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.

New Registries for the following: BGP Community Container Atoms Types, BGP Community Container Neighbor Class List Atom Types, BGP Community Container Types, Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Communities Community Types,  Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Community Optional Sub-Types.

(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?

Yang Module May be needed.

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: Standard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary:
  Route tagging plays an important role in external BGP [RFC4271]
  relations, in communicating various routing policies between peers.
  It is also a very common best practice among operators to propagate
  various additional information about routes intra-domain.  The most
  common tool used today to attach various information about routes is
  through the use of BGP communities [RFC1997].

  This document defines a new encoding which will enhance and simplify
  what can be accomplished today with the use of BGP communities.  The
  most important addition this specification makes over currently
  defined BGP communities is the ability to specify, carry as well as
  use for execution an operator's defined set of parameters.  It also
  provides an extensible platform for any new community encoding needs
  in the future.

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: The working group last call was successfully done. The draft had a good support from wg to progress further. There was a discussion of whether the "atoms" defined in the draft met the IDR implementation criteria considering most of the atoms had not been implemented, but the WG consensus indicated publication with the atoms.

Document Quality: Very good.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations but these implementations were determined to be from independent sources. The WG discussed these changed during the rpd (raft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt) draft discussion since wide communities was used for the draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt review.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mb2m9DJrTXbrkz5EnGQhuFkMqdQ/


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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.

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.

No concerns.

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dOTOx5bf4aS2aNwsNbGvxrBpEr0/
Andrew Lange
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ltLm2aT-2aLe28U-0AETFGvQ02k/
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BWHpDGtgocVqdlf2SXmSKtVi1QI/
Shawn Amante
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/12Kjce8_z3l1-lIWvx0d-RqzqDw/
Paul Jakma
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ar2LQgGOjBFwTe0VHTLsI9nJROY/

(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?

The feedback on the document is strong from the working group members.

(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 conflict.

(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.

Minor nits.

(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 review 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 (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.

No.

(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).

New values in registries:  New BGP Path attribute type.

(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.

New Registries for the following: BGP Community Container Atoms Types, BGP Community Container Neighbor Class List Atom Types, BGP Community Container Types, Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Communities Community Types,  Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Community Optional Sub-Types.

(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?

Yang Module May be needed.

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: Standard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary:
  Route tagging plays an important role in external BGP [RFC4271]
  relations, in communicating various routing policies between peers.
  It is also a very common best practice among operators to propagate
  various additional information about routes intra-domain.  The most
  common tool used today to attach various information about routes is
  through the use of BGP communities [RFC1997].

  This document defines a new encoding which will enhance and simplify
  what can be accomplished today with the use of BGP communities.  The
  most important addition this specification makes over currently
  defined BGP communities is the ability to specify, carry as well as
  use for execution an operator's defined set of parameters.  It also
  provides an extensible platform for any new community encoding needs
  in the future.

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: The working group last call was successfully done. The draft had a good support from wg to progress further. There was a discussion of whether the "atoms" defined in the draft met the IDR implementation criteria considering most of the atoms had not been implemented, but the WG consensus indicated publication with the atoms.

key points: 

Document Quality: Very good.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations but these implementations were determined to be from independent sources. The WG discussed these changed during the rpd (raft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt) draft discussion since wide communities was used for the draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt review.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mb2m9DJrTXbrkz5EnGQhuFkMqdQ/


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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.

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.

No concerns.

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dOTOx5bf4aS2aNwsNbGvxrBpEr0/
Andrew Lange
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ltLm2aT-2aLe28U-0AETFGvQ02k/
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BWHpDGtgocVqdlf2SXmSKtVi1QI/
Shawn Amante
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/12Kjce8_z3l1-lIWvx0d-RqzqDw/
Paul Jakma
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ar2LQgGOjBFwTe0VHTLsI9nJROY/

(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?

The feedback on the document is strong from the working group members.

(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 conflict.

(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.

Minor nits.

(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 review 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 (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.

No.

(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).

New values in registries:  New BGP Path attribute type.

(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.

New Registries for the following: BGP Community Container Atoms Types, BGP Community Container Neighbor Class List Atom Types, BGP Community Container Types, Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Communities Community Types,  Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Community Optional Sub-Types.

(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?

Yang Module May be needed.

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: Standard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary:
  Route tagging plays an important role in external BGP [RFC4271]
  relations, in communicating various routing policies between peers.
  It is also a very common best practice among operators to propagate
  various additional information about routes intra-domain.  The most
  common tool used today to attach various information about routes is
  through the use of BGP communities [RFC1997].

  This document defines a new encoding which will enhance and simplify
  what can be accomplished today with the use of BGP communities.  The
  most important addition this specification makes over currently
  defined BGP communities is the ability to specify, carry as well as
  use for execution an operator's defined set of parameters.  It also
  provides an extensible platform for any new community encoding needs
  in the future.

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: The working group last call was successfully done. The draft had a good support from wg to progress further.
key points:  non-implementation of

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations.

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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.

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.

No concerns.

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dOTOx5bf4aS2aNwsNbGvxrBpEr0/
Andrew Lange
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ltLm2aT-2aLe28U-0AETFGvQ02k/
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BWHpDGtgocVqdlf2SXmSKtVi1QI/
Shawn Amante
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/12Kjce8_z3l1-lIWvx0d-RqzqDw/
Paul Jakma
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ar2LQgGOjBFwTe0VHTLsI9nJROY/

(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?

The feedback on the document is strong from the working group members.

(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 conflict.

(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.

Minor nits.

(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 review 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 (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.

No.

(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).

New values in registries:  New BGP Path attribute type.

(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.

New Registries for the following: BGP Community Container Atoms Types, BGP Community Container Neighbor Class List Atom Types, BGP Community Container Types, Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Communities Community Types,  Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Community Optional Sub-Types.

(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?

Yang Module May be needed.

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: Standard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary:
  Route tagging plays an important role in external BGP [RFC4271]
  relations, in communicating various routing policies between peers.
  It is also a very common best practice among operators to propagate
  various additional information about routes intra-domain.  The most
  common tool used today to attach various information about routes is
  through the use of BGP communities [RFC1997].

  This document defines a new encoding which will enhance and simplify
  what can be accomplished today with the use of BGP communities.  The
  most important addition this specification makes over currently
  defined BGP communities is the ability to specify, carry as well as
  use for execution an operator's defined set of parameters.  It also
  provides an extensible platform for any new community encoding needs
  in the future.

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: The working group last call was successfully done. The draft had a good support from wg to progress further.
key points:  non-implementation of

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Note: 1 vendor has two different implementations.

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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.

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.

No concerns.

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
(IPR)
Andrew Lange
(IPR)
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities
Shawn Amante
(IPR)
Paul Jakma
(IPR)

(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?

The feedback on the document is strong from the working group members.

(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 conflict.

(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.

Minor nits.

(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 review 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 (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.

No.

(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).

New values in registries:  New BGP Path attribute type.

(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.

New Registries for the following: BGP Community Container Atoms Types, BGP Community Container Neighbor Class List Atom Types, BGP Community Container Types, Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Communities Community Types,  Registered Type 1 BGP Wide Community Optional Sub-Types.

(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?

Yang Module May be needed.

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: STandard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary: (see text)

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: (Keyur to fill in)
key points:  non-implementation of

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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
(IPR)
Andrew Lange
(IPR)
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities
Shawn Amante
(IPR)
Paul Jakma
(IPR)

(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 (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?

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: STandard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary: (see text)

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: (Keyur to fill in)
key points:  non-implementation of

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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
(IPR)
Andrew Lange
(IPR)
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities
Shawn Amante
(IPR)
Paul Jakma
(IPR)

(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 (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?

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: STandard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary: (see text)

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: (Keyur to fill in)
key points:  non-implementation of

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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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.
Robert Raszuk:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/u1M_vSCU_KqDUq1SGCyk7jpPS0M/
Jeff Haas
(IPR)
Andrew Lange
(IPR)
Bruno Decraene
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/?q=draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities
Shawn Amante
(IPR)
Paul Jakma
(IPR)

(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 (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?

As required by RFC 4858, 11/1/2019 version

(1) Type of RFC: STandard

(2) The IESG annoucment

Technical Summary: (see text)

Working Group Summary:
WG LC discussion: (Keyur to fill in)
key points:  non-implementation of

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:
Document shepherd: 
WG LC - Keyur Patel
WG adoption:  Susan Hares/Jeff Sudder
AD: Alvaro Retana

(3)  Document Shepherd Review actions:

(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 (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: Robert Raszuk , idr-chairs@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene , Richard Steenbergen , Paul Jakma , Shane Amante , Jeffrey Haas , Andrew Lange