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.