BGPsec Considerations for Autonomous System (AS) Migration
draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-06

[Ballot comment]
Per Wassim Haddad's Gen-ART review (thanks!), there seems to be a word missing here:

"Route Origin Validation as defined by RFC 6480 [RFC6480] does not modification to enable AS migration, ..."

[Ballot comment]
(The deferral of this draft until the bgpsec protocol draft is on the agenda resolves my comment about timing.)

From a strictly style perspective (that is, you can take this or leave it), I find  the heavy use of present continuous tense confusing to read.

[Ballot comment]
I think the Abstract & introduction are too brief. A lot of concerns might have been avoided
with a little more explanation up front.  I removed my discuss points as expanding the abstract to include more details in the introduction that appear in the security consideration section isn't really discussable, but would help the draft IMO.

Comments are left, I didn't comb through them, so take or leave the ones that have not been addressed.  Thank you.

---

Standards Track *is* right for this document, but it takes a little to
understand that while the document doesn't make any changes to the protocol, it
does describe how implementations use the protocol to deliver a specific
function.

---

Some rewording of the introduction could go a long way in helping with document clarity:
Possibly:
"This document describes how ASN migration may be performed securely using the
RPKI and BGPSec mechanisms. It defines the implementation behavior during ASN
migration, but does not define any changes to the BGPSec protocol."

*Note - if the last part remains true
---

1.2 refers to "private ASNs" and this term is well understood. But the
referenced RFC 1930 doesn't use that term. It uses the term "Reserved AS
Numbers" and describes them as "reserved for private use".

---

Section 2 has "...merging two or more ASNs..."
I think it is ASes that are being merged.

Ditto "...is not enabled between the ASNs..."

---

Section 3 has
  Since they are using methods to migrate that
  do not require coordination with customers, they do not have a great
  deal of control over the length of the transition period as they
  might with something completely under their administrative control
I can't parse this. If the methods do NOT require coordination with customers,
surely the methods are wholly under the control of the operator. Is there a
typo: s/do not require/require/ ?
Or is there some other message?

---

Section 3

  As solutions were being
  proposed for RPKI implementations to solve this transition case,
  operational complexity and hardware scaling considerations associated
  with maintaining multiple legacy ASN keys on routers throughout the
  combined network have been carefully considered.

As worded (passive voice) it demands a citation.
Possibly it is meant to say that operators have carefully considered this.
Maybe that the SIDR WG has done the consideration.

---

Section 3

It would be helpful to add a final sentence saying what this section goes on to
do. I think it examines the basic functions of RPKI to determine whether they
already handle ASN migration and to identify any issues that might arise when an
ASN changes.

---

3.1

  Route Origin Validation as defined by RFC 6480 [RFC6480] does not
  need a unique solution to enable AS migration, as the existing
  protocol and procedure allows for a solution.

That doesn't read too well to me at least, do you mean something like:

  Route Origin Validation as defined by RFC 6480 [RFC6480] does not
  need modification to enable AS migration, as the existing protocol
  and procedure allows for a solution as follows.

---

3.1
  In the scenario
  discussed, AS64510 is being replaced by AS64500.
s/discussed/discussed in RFC 7705/

---

There are some abbreviations that will need to be expanded (e.g., ROA)

---

3.2.1 has...

  However, there is currently no guidance in the
  BGPSec protocol specification [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] on
  whether or not the forward-signed ASN value is required to match the
  configured remote AS to validate properly

"currently" looks unlikely to change at this stage given the status of
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol.
So, either
- make the changes to draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol while you can
or
- change this text to reflect reality as...
"However, there is no guidance..."

---


3.2.1
s/remote as 64510/remote AS 64510/
s/local as 64510/local AS 64510/

---

3.2.1

It took me several attempts to parse...
  Assuming that this mismatch
  will be allowed by vendor implementations and using it as a means to
  solve this migration case is likely to be problematic.

Did you mean:
  If we assume that this mismatch
  will be allowed by vendor implementations and that using it as a
  means to solve this migration case, then we are likely to see problems
  when implementations disallow the mismatch.

---

3.2.2

  However, if
  the updates are left intact, this will cause the AS Path length to be
  increased, which is undesirable as discussed in RFC7705 [RFC7705].

On reading this I thought: "Undesirable is OK for a short transition period,"
but I went and read 7705. There, in the introduction, it says "it is critical
that the ISP does not increase AS_PATH length during or after ASN migration".

So I would s/is undesirable/must be avoided/

(Note: Section 4 has this as MUST NOT.)

---

The text before the bullets in section 4 should...
s/listed in no particular order:/listed in no particular order. BGPSec:/

Then "BGPSec" can be deleted from the first bullet.

---

In section 5...

  Since that PE has been moved to AS64500, it is
  not possible for it to forward-sign AS64510 with pCount=0 without
  some minor changes to the BGPSec implementation to address this use
  case.

I know what this is saying, but it is a bit skewed since implementations are not
normally in scope for our specs. Perhaps...

  Since that PE has been moved to AS64500, this described
  a new behavior for implementations to forward-sign AS64510 with
  pCount=0.

---

Section 5

  This document proposes
  applying a similar technique

Too late! If this is to be an RFC on the Standards Track then

  This document describes
  how to apply a similar technique

---

Section 5 has

  (see section 4.4 of the above-referenced draft)

Really? Too tired to actually include the reference? But by the time this
document is published the reference will be an RFC and this text will be left
dangling.

----

5.2

  The requirement to sign updates in iBGP represents a change
  to the normal behavior for this specific AS-migration implementation
  only.

s/implementation/scenario/

---

I always love it when the Acknowledgements section thanks one of the authors :-)

---

Section 8

This has happened before, but it usually leads the IESG to say "Hang on, why
don't you just fix the protocol spec?"

At the least, the Abstract and Introduction need to include the right text that
would be present for an "Update". That is: what document is updated and what
change is made.

---

Section 9

Is "reasonably secure" should be replaced with something more accurate.  Maybe this will come with the new text Sandy is working on.

  this is not fundamentally altering the
  existing security risks for BGPSec.

That seems to say "...is somewhat (or marginally) altering..." which doesn't
sound good.

---

I hope the more detailed review is helpful.  I still need to look at BGPsec to feel more comfortable with this one.

Just changing the state to AD Followup because I have the action to put this document back on the IESG Telechat agenda when the BGPSec spec makes it there.

Several of the ADs have made the point that for the proper review of this document a previous review and understanding of the BGPSec Protocol Specification (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol) is needed.  I took this document off the May/5.16 Telechat agenda and will put it back at the time that BGPSec is ready for IESG review.

[Ballot comment]

I've yet to review this one, but I'd like to join the chorus asking that this
be put onto the same telechat as bgpsec - based on a quick scan I can't
see how I can evaluate this without also evaluating bgpsec. If this stays
on this week's telechat I may not have time to review both (I do think
bgpsec deserves a proper review), in which case I may have to hit the
"defer" button tomorrow. (This note is just a heads up for that, in the
hope that someone else pushes this out in the meantime:-)

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Kathleen (and others) in terms of timing on seeing this particular document. What is the time-line for seeing BGPSec at the IESG now that the in-WG discussion regarding its status has concluded?

[Ballot comment]
I agree with other comments that it seems odd to publish this in advance of BGPSec. The need to "update" a document that has not yet been published seems telling.

From a strictly style perspective (that is, you can take this or leave it), I find  the heavy use of present continuous tense confusing to read.

[Ballot comment]
Similar to other comments, not sure why this is being progressed now. If progress with BGPsec (or after), would help to ensure alignment and avoid the need to update the metadata later (Section 8 RFC Editor note). As BGPsec has a pointer to this draft (seems a bit strange for it to have a pointer to it's update) - why not include the appropriate text in BGPsec itself to support. And then this draft would not need to "update" and both documents could simply reference each other.

[Ballot comment]
Similar to other comments, not sure why this is being progressed now. If progress with BGPsec (or after), would help to ensure alignment and avoid the need to update the metadata later (Section 8 RFC Editor note).

[Ballot discuss]
I'm wondering a few things that I think are important to discuss.  If this is all fine, I may have more comments as I think I'll need to dig into the BGPsec draft first and then this one again.

1.  Why is this document preceding the BGP spec?  Shouldn't this be part of the BGPSec protocol document?  If BGPSec isn't getting deployed because of the AS path migration problem and this gets us a little further, but not quite as secure, maybe that's a trade off we need to accept.  But this document coming through first is a little concerning even though the protocol spec is a normative reference.

2.  The introduction makes this sound rather innocuous, but the security considerations section is more explicit that this is a work around BGPSec and isn't quite as secure.  I'd like to see some text explaining this better in the introduction, more similar to what's in the first paragraph of the security considerations section.  See comments below too with some text.  Sandy said she was working on this section as well, thanks for that!

Thank you

[Ballot comment]
I think the Abstract & introduction are too brief. A lot of concerns might have been avoided
with a little more explanation up front.

---

Standards Track *is* right for this document, but it takes a little to
understand that while the document doesn't make any changes to the protocol, it
does describe how implementations use the protocol to deliver a specific
function.

---

Some rewording of the introduction could go a long way in helping with document clarity:
Possibly:
"This document describes how ASN migration may be performed securely using the
RPKI and BGPSec mechanisms. It defines the implementation behavior during ASN
migration, but does not define any changes to the BGPSec protocol."

*Note - if the last part remains true
---

1.2 refers to "private ASNs" and this term is well understood. But the
referenced RFC 1930 doesn't use that term. It uses the term "Reserved AS
Numbers" and describes them as "reserved for private use".

---

Section 2 has "...merging two or more ASNs..."
I think it is ASes that are being merged.

Ditto "...is not enabled between the ASNs..."

---

Section 3 has
  Since they are using methods to migrate that
  do not require coordination with customers, they do not have a great
  deal of control over the length of the transition period as they
  might with something completely under their administrative control
I can't parse this. If the methods do NOT require coordination with customers,
surely the methods are wholly under the control of the operator. Is there a
typo: s/do not require/require/ ?
Or is there some other message?

---

Section 3

  As solutions were being
  proposed for RPKI implementations to solve this transition case,
  operational complexity and hardware scaling considerations associated
  with maintaining multiple legacy ASN keys on routers throughout the
  combined network have been carefully considered.

As worded (passive voice) it demands a citation.
Possibly it is meant to say that operators have carefully considered this.
Maybe that the SIDR WG has done the consideration.

---

Section 3

It would be helpful to add a final sentence saying what this section goes on to
do. I think it examines the basic functions of RPKI to determine whether they
already handle ASN migration and to identify any issues that might arise when an
ASN changes.

---

3.1

  Route Origin Validation as defined by RFC 6480 [RFC6480] does not
  need a unique solution to enable AS migration, as the existing
  protocol and procedure allows for a solution.

That doesn't read too well to me at least, do you mean something like:

  Route Origin Validation as defined by RFC 6480 [RFC6480] does not
  need modification to enable AS migration, as the existing protocol
  and procedure allows for a solution as follows.

---

3.1
  In the scenario
  discussed, AS64510 is being replaced by AS64500.
s/discussed/discussed in RFC 7705/

---

There are some abbreviations that will need to be expanded (e.g., ROA)

---

3.2.1 has...

  However, there is currently no guidance in the
  BGPSec protocol specification [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] on
  whether or not the forward-signed ASN value is required to match the
  configured remote AS to validate properly

"currently" looks unlikely to change at this stage given the status of
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol.
So, either
- make the changes to draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol while you can
or
- change this text to reflect reality as...
"However, there is no guidance..."

---


3.2.1
s/remote as 64510/remote AS 64510/
s/local as 64510/local AS 64510/

---

3.2.1

It took me several attempts to parse...
  Assuming that this mismatch
  will be allowed by vendor implementations and using it as a means to
  solve this migration case is likely to be problematic.

Did you mean:
  If we assume that this mismatch
  will be allowed by vendor implementations and that using it as a
  means to solve this migration case, then we are likely to see problems
  when implementations disallow the mismatch.

---

3.2.2

  However, if
  the updates are left intact, this will cause the AS Path length to be
  increased, which is undesirable as discussed in RFC7705 [RFC7705].

On reading this I thought: "Undesirable is OK for a short transition period,"
but I went and read 7705. There, in the introduction, it says "it is critical
that the ISP does not increase AS_PATH length during or after ASN migration".

So I would s/is undesirable/must be avoided/

(Note: Section 4 has this as MUST NOT.)

---

The text before the bullets in section 4 should...
s/listed in no particular order:/listed in no particular order. BGPSec:/

Then "BGPSec" can be deleted from the first bullet.

---

In section 5...

  Since that PE has been moved to AS64500, it is
  not possible for it to forward-sign AS64510 with pCount=0 without
  some minor changes to the BGPSec implementation to address this use
  case.

I know what this is saying, but it is a bit skewed since implementations are not
normally in scope for our specs. Perhaps...

  Since that PE has been moved to AS64500, this described
  a new behavior for implementations to forward-sign AS64510 with
  pCount=0.

---

Section 5

  This document proposes
  applying a similar technique

Too late! If this is to be an RFC on the Standards Track then

  This document describes
  how to apply a similar technique

---

Section 5 has

  (see section 4.4 of the above-referenced draft)

Really? Too tired to actually include the reference? But by the time this
document is published the reference will be an RFC and this text will be left
dangling.

----

5.2

  The requirement to sign updates in iBGP represents a change
  to the normal behavior for this specific AS-migration implementation
  only.

s/implementation/scenario/

---

I always love it when the Acknowledgements section thanks one of the authors :-)

---

Section 8

This has happened before, but it usually leads the IESG to say "Hang on, why
don't you just fix the protocol spec?"

At the least, the Abstract and Introduction need to include the right text that
would be present for an "Update". That is: what document is updated and what
change is made.

---

Section 9

Is "reasonably secure" should be replaced with something more accurate.  Maybe this will come with the new text Sandy is working on.

  this is not fundamentally altering the
  existing security risks for BGPSec.

That seems to say "...is somewhat (or marginally) altering..." which doesn't
sound good.

---

I hope the more detailed review is helpful.  I still need to look at BGPsec to feel more comfortable with this one.

[Ballot comment]
I will note that progressing this as Standards track does presume
that BGsec will also progress as Standards track, or that there will be
a downref from PS to Experimental.

[Ballot discuss]
I'm wondering a few things that I think are important to discuss.  If this is all fine, I may have more comments as I think I'll need to dig into the BGPsec draft first and then this one again.

1.  Why is this document preceding the BGP spec?  Shouldn't this be part of the BGPSec protocol document?  If BGPSec isn't getting deployed because of the AS path migration problem and this gets us a little further, but not quite as secure, maybe that's a trade off we need to accept.  But this document coming through first is a little concerning even though the protocol spec is a normative reference.

2.  The introduction makes this sound rather innocuous, but the security considerations section is more explicit that this is a work around BGPSec and isn't quite as secure.  I'd like to see some text explaining this better in the introduction, more similar to what's in the first paragraph of the security considerations section.

Thank you

=== AD Review (Mar/25.16) ===

I just finished reviewing this document.  Please see detailed comments below.

The set of Major comments looks long, but I think it is mostly comprised of clarifications (and items that were also discussed when processing RFC7705).  Most of the items made it to the Major list just because of the use of normative language.

Because I think that even the Major comments should be easy to resolve and won't represent a significant change in the content or intent of this document, I am going to start the IETF Last Call and schedule this document in the next available IESG Telechat.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


Major

1. Section 3.1. (Origin Validation): "Therefore, for each ROA that authorizes AS64510 to originate a prefix, a new ROA MUST also be created that authorizes AS64500 to originate the same prefix." Given that this text is normative, please use a generic description (not specific to the example).

2. Section 3.2.1. (Outbound announcements (PE-->CE)): "…no guidance in the BGPSec protocol specification [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol] on whether or not the forward-signed ASN value MUST match the configured remote AS to validate properly…"  That "MUST" is not normative in this document, nor it is being quoted.  Please find a way to convey the same meaning w/out rfc2119 language.  Suggestion: s/MUST/must

3. There are some places where this document uses language around configuration or knobs, or even uses configuration snippets.  Please avoid those and use the language from RFC7705.  Here are some examples, but there may be others that I missed:
* "configuration/transition/migration knobs" are mentioned several times.  Please use "mechanisms" (or something like that) instead.
* 3.1: "replace-as as defined in RFC 6480"  I believe the correct reference is to "Replace OLD AS" in RFC7705.
* 3.2.1: "…if CE1's BGP session is configured as "remote-as 64510", the presence of "local-as 64510" on PE1…"
* 5: "…using the transition knobs detailed in draft-ietf-idr-as-migration…"
* 5.1: "…locally configured with AS-migration knobs as discussed in draft-ietf-idr-as-migration…"
* 5.2: "…locally configured with AS-migration knobs …"
* 5.3: "…applying AS migration knobs…"

4. Section 4. (Requirements):
* "BGPSec MUST support AS Migration...  It SHOULD do this without reducing BGPSec's protections for route path"  Why is the "SHOULD" not a "MUST"?  In other words, are there cases when it may be ok for reducing the protection?
* "SHOULD confine configuration changes to the migrating PEs e.g. can't require global configuration changes to support migration" This requirement is about configuration, not about the mechanism itself.  Is there a way to express the same requirement in terms of functionality of the mechanism (and not configuration)?

5. Section 5.3. (Other considerations)  There are a couple of places where normative language is used, but where it seems to me that what is described is "business as usual" and then shouldn't be mandated here.  See below.  Is my interpretation correct?
* "…routers that receive updates from iBGP neighbors MUST accept updates with new (properly-formed) BGPSec attributes…"  Are you referring here to routers in general, as in routers that may not support the migration mechanism?  Shouldn't these non-RFC7705 routers accept BGPSec attributes anyway?  In other words, it is not something you need to mandate here because the updates are not really different from other BGPSec updates.  Maybe the overall consideration is really that "BGPSec should be fully deployed" (or something like that) -- note that if other routers don't accept BGPSec attributes then BGPSec in general won't work and not just the migration mechanisms.
* "…any route-reflectors in the path of these updates MUST reflect them transparently to their clients."  draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol doesn't explicitly talk about RRs, but it contains the text below in 4.1. (reference [18] is this document).  The text basically says (paraphrasing) that a RR SHOULD NOT change the update…which is equivalent to if the
peer supports BGPSec then it MUST NOT change the update…which is the same as what you wrote (with the MUST, except for the caveat of the peer supporting BGPSec — which I think is implicit in your text).  All this is to say that as with the case above the "MUST" is not needed.
* "The case where the BGPsec speaker sends a BGPsec update message to an internal (iBGP) peer is quite simple.  …the BGPsec speaker typically populates the BGPsec_Path attribute by copying the BGPsec_Path attribute from the received update message.  That is, the BGPsec_Path attribute is copied verbatim. However, in the case that the BGPsec speaker is performing an AS Migration, the BGPsec speaker may add an additional signature on ingress before copying the BGPsec_Path attribute (see [18] for more details).
Note that when a BGPsec speaker chooses to forward a BGPsec update message to an iBGP peer, the BGPsec attribute SHOULD NOT be removed, unless the peer doesn't support BGPsec."


6. Section 8. (Security Considerations) 
* "BGPSec MUST be able to manage this legitimate use of AS_Path manipulation…" This sounds like a requirement for BGPSec, but skimming that document it looks like it doesn't do anything special as a result (just reference this document for more information).  Having said that, this document uses BGPSec mechanisms to solve the problem — the procedure is changed, but I don't think that the characteristics of the solution is.  I'm trying to argue eliminating the "MUST" because the solution is realized without BGPSec having to do anything extra.

7. As with RFC7705 updating RFC4271, should this document be marked as updating the BGPSec document?  I think it does.


Minor

1. s/I-D.ietf-idr-as-migration/RFC7705
2. Section 2. (General Scenario).  The scenario is not fully described in this section (which is ok), and I know there's a forward reference to 5.4.  It might be good to mention that the rest of the document will rely heavily on the example and the figures in RFC7705 so that people read them before going on.
3. Section 3. (RPKI Considerations): As you know, I'm not thrilled about text like this: "While SPs SHOULD NOT remain in this transition phase indefinitely…" because I think it can't be enforced and it is an unnecessary use of rfc2119 language.  I am really happy that we avoided such language in RFC7705.  Maybe a compromise is to point this document to the Operational Considerations (Section 5) which basically discusses the same thing (and avoid having the same discussion is two places).
4. Please check the section references to BGPSec — the latest version (-15) doesn't seem to match the references in the document.
5. I think it would be worth pointing at RFC7705 in the Security Considerations.


Nits:

1. s/The reason that this migration requires a slightly different solution in BGPSec than for a standard confederation is that unlike in a confederation, eBGP peers…/This migration requires a different solution in BGPSec because unlike in a confederation, eBGP peers…
2. s/(section 5.4) (Section 5.4)/(section 5.4)
3. 5.4: "…the "keep" AS"  This is only used in this section.  Maybe better to stick with old AS.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-04.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

ProposedStandard

(This is indicated in the document header.)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
  This draft discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
  securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.

Working Group Summary

There was considerable discussion about this document in both SIDR and IDR working groups. I believe there were not any show stopping parts to this conversation.

Document Quality
  This document describes methods and considerations that could be used in supporting and securing a common method of AS Migration used in networks today.

Personnel

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

  Document Shepherd: Chris Morrow
  AD: Alvaro Retana


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I read the document (a few times now) and believe the document is ready for publication. Folk in the working group seem to agree, and the partner document in IDR (draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03) is moving forward at this time as well.

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

The document shepherd does not harbor any concerns about this document.

(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.

I believe the parts of this document which require specialized review have been reviewed. That review was done by IDR folk during the working group work on that document as well.

(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.

I'm not concerned about this document.

(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.

Yes

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

N/A

(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 wg consensus appears to be solid for this document.

(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.)

There are no threats at this time.

(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.

The idnits process turned up no significant issues.


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

N/A

(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?

There are 2 normative references to drafts:
  I-D.ietf-idr-as-migration - should be changed to: RFC 7705
  I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol

The final reference should be resolved prior to final publication, I believe. The first (idr draft) should be changed in auth48.

(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.

RFC5398 is referenced in this document, because AS numbers are used in the document, numbers which are from the reserved AS number space. Noting that the numbers used in this document are private/reserved seems to be on point, and the references seem to be relevant to the flow and intent of the document.

(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).

I reviewed the IANA considerations section in this document, there are no considerations for IANA here.

(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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: morrowc@ops-netman.net, aretana@cisco.com, draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration@ietf.org, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGPSec Considerations for AS Migration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'BGPSec Considerations for AS Migration'
  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 2016-04-15. 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


  This document discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
  securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

ProposedStandard

(This is indicated in the document header.)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
  This draft discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
  securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.

Working Group Summary

There was considerable discussion about this document in both SIDR and IDR working groups. I believe there were not any show stopping parts to this conversation.

Document Quality
  This document describes methods and considerations that could be used in supporting and securing a common method of AS Migration used in networks today.

Personnel

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

  Document Shepherd: Chris Morrow
  AD: Alia Atlas


(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.

I read the document (a few times now) and believe the document is ready for publication. Folk in the working group seem to agree, and the partner document in IDR (draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03) is moving forward at this time as well.

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

The document shepherd does not harbor any concerns about this document.

(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.

I believe the parts of this document which require specialized review have been reviewed. That review was done by IDR folk during the working group work on that document as well.

(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.

I'm not concerned about this document.

(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.

Yes

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

N/A

(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 wg consensus appears to be solid for this document.

(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.)

There are no threats at this time.

(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.

The idnits process turned up:
  An old date (30 days ago).
  1 downref to RFC5398 (which seems ok in this case)


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

N/A

(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?

There are not normative references to unfinished documents.

(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.

RFC5398 is referenced in this document, because AS numbers are used in the document, numbers which are from the reserved AS number space. Noting that the numbers used in this document are private/reserved seems to be on point, and the references seem to be relevant to the flow and intent of the document.

(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).

I reviewed the IANA considerations section in this document, there are no considerations for IANA here.

(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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

ProposedStandard

(This is indicated in the document header.)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
  This draft discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
  securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.

Working Group Summary

There was considerable discussion about this document in both SIDR and IDR working groups. I believe there were not any show stopping parts to this conversation.

Document Quality
  This document describes methods and considerations that could be used in supporting and securing a common method of AS Migration used in networks today.

Personnel

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

  Document Shepherd: Chris Morrow
  AD: Alia Atlas


(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.

I read the document (a few times now) and believe the document is ready for publication. Folk in the working group seem to agree, and the partner document in IDR (draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03) is moving forward at this time as well.

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

The document shepherd does not harbor any concerns about this document.

(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.

I believe the parts of this document which require specialized review have been reviewed. That review was done by IDR folk during the working group work on that document as well.

(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.

I'm not concerned about this document.

(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.

Yes

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

N/A

(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 wg consensus appears to be solid for this document.

(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.)

There are no threats at this time.

(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.

The idnits process turned up:
  An old date (30 days ago).
  1 downref to RFC5398 (which seems ok in this case)


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

N/A

(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?

There are not normative references to unfinished documents.

(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.

RFC5398 is referenced in this document, because AS numbers are used in the document, numbers which are from the reserved AS number space. Noting that the numbers used in this document are private/reserved seems to be on point, and the references seem to be relevant to the flow and intent of the document.

(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).

I reviewed the IANA considerations section in this document, there are no considerations for IANA here.

(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

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (BGPSec Considerations for AS Migration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'BGPSec Considerations for AS Migration'
  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 2015-02-13. 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


  This draft discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
  securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/ballot/


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

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(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?

ProposedStandard

(This is indicated in the document header.)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
  This draft discusses considerations and methods for supporting and
  securing a common method for AS-Migration within the BGPSec protocol.

Working Group Summary

There was considerable discussion about this document in both SIDR and IDR working groups. I believe there were not any show stopping parts to this conversation.

Document Quality
  This is not a protocol, but configuration and implementation details being codified for
  future implementers to be aware of, so operations of networks can continue. The
  document outlines processes and procedures which are used today in networks,
  most vendors implement a set of this document's features.

Personnel

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

  Document Shepherd: Chris Morrow
  AD: Alia Atlas


(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.

I read the document (a few times now) and believe the document is ready for publication. Folk in the working group seem to agree, and the partner document in IDR (draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03) is moving forward at this time as well.

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

The document shepherd does not harbor any concerns about this document.

(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.

I believe the parts of this document which require specialized review have been reviewed. That review was done by IDR folk during the working group work on that document as well.

(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.

I'm not concerned about this document.

(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.

Yes

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

N/A

(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 wg consensus appears to be solid for this document.

(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.)

There are no threats at this time.

(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.

The idnits process turned up:
  An old date (30 days ago).
  1 downref to RFC5398 (which seems ok in this case)


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

N/A

(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?

There are not normative references to unfinished documents.

(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.

RFC5398 is referenced in this document, because AS numbers are used in the document, numbers which are from the reserved AS number space. Noting that the numbers used in this document are private/reserved seems to be on point, and the references seem to be relevant to the flow and intent of the document.

(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).

I reviewed the IANA considerations section in this document, there are no considerations for IANA here.

(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