As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 14 June 2016.
(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 draft requested status is Standards Track, as indicated on the title
page. After an extensive discussion, WG members concluded that Proposed Standard
would be appropriate mainly because of the following arguments:
The design of BGPsec is based on more than 15 years of analysis,
including more than five years of protocol engineering, discussions, and
revisions in the IETF. In particular, the original design evolved to
accommodate real-world routing deployment topics. As such, BGPsec is
generally stable, has resolved known design choices, and is believed to
BGPsec is the successor of the origin validation standards. Changing the
track to Experimental will limit adoption.
A critical amount of the community seems to think that BGPsec is a
promising approach that merits Proposed Standard.
Several implementations are available (details see below).
(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:
BGPsec describes a security extension to the Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP). This extension provides functionality to verify the integrity of
the AS path within an BGP update message. It thus enables a BGP speaker
to check if the update message has been traversed along the AS path as
listed in the update message.
To implement the proposed functionality, BGPsec replaces the existing
AS_PATH attribute by an BGPsec_Path attribute, specifies a BGPsec update
message, and relies on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) for
provision of router certificates.
Working Group Summary
This document has been discussed in the working group since 2011. The WG
has been asked periodically to confirm continued interest, and has each
time indicated that the work is valuable and should continue.
Publication of this document will conclude milestone "Publication:
Document the BGP protocol enhancements that meet the security
requirements" of the SIDR working group.
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?
The work mentioned here is applicable to all inter-domain BGP operators.
BGPsec has been implemented in BIRD and Quagga, two popular open source
BGP daemons. The BIRD community explicitly agreed to integrate this
extension in the main branch.
The document has undergone three working group last calls. During the
first and second WGLC Wes George gave extensive feedback. David
Mandelberg identified a syntax problem during the second WGLC.
After the second call was passed and a revised version has been
submitted, David Mandelberg identified a problem with security
guarantees, which led to protocol changes in the subsequent version.
After that Oliver Borchert and Michael Baer proposed to change the .
Sequence of Octets to be Signed. The proposed changes were based on
implementation experiences to enable the validation of the complete
chain of signatures in an update. This was the last normative change.
During the third WGLC no normative changes have been requested.
John Scudder provided substantial editorial feedback.
The Inter-Domain Working Group was also asked for feedback during the
No expert review was required.
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Shepherd: Matthias Waehlisch
Responsible 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 document shepherd has reviewed the document, identified a few
ambiguities which have been resolved with the authors.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. This document has been carefully reviewed by the WG multiple times.
(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
There is no need for a broader review.
(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
The document shepherd has 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.
The document authors have all confirmed they know of no needed
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
There is no IPR disclosure filed for 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?
The WG has confirmed more than once that they are interested
in this work and have reviewed it multiple times.
(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 has been neither threat of an appeal nor extreme discontent.
(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
The idnits tool reports no errors.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
The document has no content that requires formal review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, the references are identified as either normative or informative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
References - are normative references and currently Internet
drafts. They are being requested to be published at the same time as
this draft, or are past WGLC and are waiting for writeup in the IDR
(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.
The idnits tool reports no downward normative 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.
No, the publication of this document will not change the status of any
(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).
This document registers a new capability in the registry of BGP
Capabilities. The description for the new capability is "BGPsec
Furthermore, this document registers a new path attribute in the
registry of BGP Path Attributes. The code for this new attribute is
The registries are clearly identified, the values are consistent
with the text, all extensions are noted for registration in the
proper registries. No new IANA registries are created.
(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.
No new IANA registries are created by this document.
(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.
There are no sections of the document written in a formal language.