Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview

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?

The document header says:

    Intended status: Informational

This document is an overview of the BGPsec protocol and its usage as
described in detail in a set of SIDR working group documents.  The
Informational status is appropriate.


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

Technical Summary

   This document provides an overview of a security extension to the
   Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) referred to as BGPsec.
      
   BGPsec (Border Gateway Protocol Security) is an extension to the
   Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) that provides improved security for BGP
   routing [RFC4271]. This document contains a brief overview of BGPsec
   and its envisioned usage.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 
  rough?

This document is an overview of the BGPsec protocol and its usage as
described in detail in a set of SIDR working group documents.  The WG
discussion of that document set was thorough and detailed.  There was
no controversy about this overview.  It was discussed at IETF80 and
has been through 8 versions.

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, 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?

This document is an informational overview of the BGPsec protocol.
The protocol itself has two open source implementations.  Stephen Kent
and Wes George are noted as having done especially thorough or
significant reviews.  The document does not define a MIB and does not
need an expert review.

Personnel

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

The document shepherd is Sandra Murphy.
The Responsible Area Director is 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.

The shepherd has personally reviewed this document.

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

The shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews
of 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.

No particular or broader review is needed.

(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.

The document shepherd has no concerns 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.

All authors have confirmed all appropriate IPR disclosures have been made.

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

No IPR has been filed against this document.

(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?

This document is an overview of the BGPsec protocol as described in
detail in a set of SIDR working group documents.  The documents it
covers have been thoroughly discussed in the working group and the
WG as a whole understands them.  There has been no controversy over
this overview.

(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 appeal has been threatened.

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

The ID nits check reports no problems:

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

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

The document required no such formal review.

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

All references are identified as 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?

There are no normative references that are not ready for advancement.
Normative references are to published RFCs and to SIDR working group
drafts for which publication has been requested.

(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.

There are no downward references.

(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.

This document makes no change in the status of any existing RFC.


(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).

The IANA considerations section notes there are no considerations.  No
new IANA registries are created and there are no references to
existing IANA registries.

(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.

The document creates no new IANA 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, etc.

The document has no such formal language
Back