BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-10

[Ballot comment]
Clearing my DISCUSS on the basis that the following text is added as a RFC editor note, as discussed with Adrian and Ron Bonica:

OLD:
  ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration, and SHOULD
  default to being disabled.

NEW:
  ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration, and if controlled by
  configuration it MUST default to being disabled

[Ballot comment]
In the ballot:

  Opposition to the proposal was initially expressed by one contributor,
  but there was good support for adoption and no particular follow-up
  from that contributor.

I'm glad someone wrote it down, but it's not exactly confidence inspiring. Was this just random opposition without explanation, or did the person have a point and it got addressed to the chairs' satisfaction, or did something get dropped? I expect it's that the concern was addressed reasonably, but the above doesn't exactly say that.

[Ballot discuss]
Ron's point, part of the OPS-DIR review, look valid to me. Can we please discuss it.

This document is well written and well thought out. It is almost ready for publication with one small issue.

In Section 2.3, the authors say, " ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration, and SHOULD  default to being disabled. IMO, they should say, "ACCEPT_OWN handling MUST be controlled by configuration, and MUST default to being disabled."

AFAIKS, you would never want to build a router where ACCEPT_OWN behavior is always on and cannot be disabled by configuration. Likewise, you would never want to build a router where ACCEPT_OWN behavior is the default.

[Ballot comment]
In Sec 2,2, it says:
"This implies that when propagating routes into a VRF,
  the ACCEPT_OWN community should not be propagated.  Likewise, if a
  route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received in an address
  family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the
  ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded."

In the first sentence above, it seems like the "should not" should be either "SHOULD NOT"
or "MUST NOT".  Is there a reason that the text is descriptive instead of normative?

[Ballot comment]

- section 6: I think I buy the argument that there are no
new security issues here but that's only true I think if the
security issues with route reflectors are somewhere (and if
those cover cases where crypto is not used to enforce the
"P" in VPN). Wouldn't a reference to something like that be
good here?

- I like non-informative appendices:-)

[Ballot comment]
Nothing blocking here, but some things to please consider (and chat with me if you think it's needed):

Please expand "VRF" and "PE" on first use.

-- Section 2.1 --

  A router MAY accept a route whose ORIGINATOR_ID or NEXT_HOP value
  matches that of the receiving speaker if all of the following are
  true:

Just checking here:

1. The "MAY" means that even if all the following are true, the router might still not accept the route -- it's optional.  Is that what's intended?

2. This text says nothing about what happens if *not* all of the following are true.  A router might still accept the route (or not).  Is that what's intended?  Or is a "MUST NOT accept" meant to be implied in that case?

  A route MUST never be accepted back into its source VRF, even if it
  carries one or more Route Targets (RTs) which match that VRF.

I think "MUST never be accepted" is a bit awkward, because one immediately thinks of "MUST" as a positive command.  I suggest "A route MUST NOT ever be accepted...."

-- Appendix A --
The title says "Local Extranet Application (non-informative)".  Do you mean "non-normative" here?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-08.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which needs to be completed.

In the BGP Well-Known Communities registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/

the existing early/temporary registration specified by:

Attribute Value: 0xFFFF0001
Attribute: ACCEPT_OWN

will be made permanent and given a reference of [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled Services WG (bess)
to consider the following document:
- 'BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  Under certain conditions it is desirable for a BGP route reflector to
  be able to modify the Route Target list of a VPN route that is
  distributed by the route reflector, enabling the route reflector to
  control how a route originated within one VRF is imported into other
  VRFs.  This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that
  exports the route is not on the same PE as the VRF(s) that import the
  route.  However, due to the constraints of the BGP protocol, it does
  not work if the two are on the same PE.  This document describes a
  modification to the BGP protocol allowing this technique to work when
  the VRFs are on the same PE, allowing the technique to be used in a
  standard manner throughout an autonomous system.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this
type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

A Standard Track publication is requested, and the title page header mentions it.
This is the proper type for a document proposing and updating procedures.

(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:

  Under certain conditions it is desirable for a BGP route reflector to
  be able to modify the Route Target list of a VPN route that is
  distributed by the route reflector, enabling the route reflector to
  control how a route originated within one VRF is imported into other
  VRFs.  This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that
  exports the route is not on the same PE as the VRF(s) that import the
  route.  However, due to the constraints of the BGP protocol, it does
  not work if the two are on the same PE.  This document describes a
  modification to the BGP protocol allowing this technique to work when
  the VRFs are on the same PE, allowing the technique to be used in a
  standard manner throughout an autonomous system.

Working Group Summary:

Opposition to the proposal was initally expressed by one contributor, but there was
good support for adoption and no particular follow-up from that contributor.

Document Quality:

The specs are clear and concise, and document a fairly straightforward optional
change to the BGP protocol procedures. The document was discussed in both l3vpn
and idr working groups. These specs have been implemented at least in Cisco's IOS
XR with field deployment.

Personnel:

Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.

(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.

The document is ready for IESG review. The document shepherd has done a thorough
review of the document, a few minor editorial changes are suggested, that can be
integrated by authors in parallel with the IESG review.

(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 specific concern.

(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?

All authors confirmed during WGLC (in May 2014) that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79
have already been filed.

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

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a
whole understand and agree with it?

Good consensus.
10 to 20 people were involved, which is reasonable given that the use case is quite a
niche use case.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See
http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks
are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Only one nit raised by idnits.

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
    disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been
    unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the
    IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to
    grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise,
    the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal
    Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more
    information.)

The shepherd has taken the action of asking authors if they agree to grand these
rights and then remove the said disclaimer in the next draft revision.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Yes (allocation of a codepoint in a FCFS IANA registry: no review needed).

(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 such case.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list
these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No downward normative reference.

(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 5226).

One new codepoint needed in an FCFS registry, properly explained in the IANA
section, and the codepoint has already been allocated by IANA.
No new registry.

(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.

N/A

(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, etc.

N/A

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

A Standard Track publication is requested, and the title page header mentions it.
This is the proper type for a document proposing and updating procedures.

(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:

  Under certain conditions it is desirable for a BGP route reflector to
  be able to modify the Route Target list of a VPN route that is
  distributed by the route reflector, enabling the route reflector to
  control how a route originated within one VRF is imported into other
  VRFs.  This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that
  exports the route is not on the same PE as the VRF(s) that import the
  route.  However, due to the constraints of the BGP protocol, it does
  not work if the two are on the same PE.  This document describes a
  modification to the BGP protocol allowing this technique to work when
  the VRFs are on the same PE, allowing the technique to be used in a
  standard manner throughout an autonomous system.

Working Group Summary:

Opposition to the proposal was initally expressed by one contributor, but there was good support for adoption and no particular follow-up from that contributor.

Document Quality:

The specs are clear and concise, and document a fairly straightforward optional change to the BGP protocol procedures. The document was discussed in both l3vpn and idr working groups. These specs have been implemented at least in Cisco's IOS XR with field deployment.

Personnel:

Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.

(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.

The document is ready for IESG review. The document shepherd has done a thorough review of the document, a few minor editorial changes are suggested, that can be integrated by authors in parallel with the IESG review.

(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 specific concern.

(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?

All authors confirmed during WGLC (in May 2014) that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.

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

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Good consensus.
10 to 20 people were involved, which is reasonable given that the use case is quite a niche use case.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Only one nit raised by idnits.

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
    disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been
    unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the
    IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to
    grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise,
    the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal
    Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more
    information.)

The shepherd has taken the action of asking authors if they agree to grand these rights and then remove the said disclaimer in the next draft revision.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Yes (allocation of a codepoint in a FCFS IANA registry: no review needed).

(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 such case.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No downward normative reference.

(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 5226).

One new codepoint needed in an FCFS registry, properly explained in the IANA section, and the codepoint has already been allocated by IANA.
No new registry.

(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.

N/A

(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, etc.

N/A