BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community
draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-03-06
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-21
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-02-16
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH48 |
2017-02-16
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2017-02-03
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2017-02-03
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2017-02-02
|
11 | Jon Mitchell | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Jon Mitchell was rejected |
2017-01-25
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell |
2017-01-25
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jon Mitchell |
2017-01-18
|
11 | Niclas Comstedt | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Niclas Comstedt was rejected |
2017-01-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-01-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-01-11
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-01-11
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-01-11
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-01-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-01-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-01-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-01-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-01-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-01-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-01-10
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2017-01-10
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-01-10
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-01-10
|
11 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-11.txt |
2017-01-10
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-10
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "David Ward" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Randy Bush" , "Keyur Patel" , "Pradosh Mohapatra" , "John Scudder" |
2017-01-10
|
11 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-15
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-12-15
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-15
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-14
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-12-14
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
10 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-14
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-13
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-13
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-12-13
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - section 2, super-nit: when you say "the last octet ... encodes" that is a teeny bit ambiguous, as it could just about … [Ballot comment] - section 2, super-nit: when you say "the last octet ... encodes" that is a teeny bit ambiguous, as it could just about be read to mean that the last octet is a bit mask, leading someone's code to not correctly handle future values >2. So it might be good to be that little bit more explicit that the other 6 bits of that octet are also important, even if they're not defined now. IOW, if a device sees a value 4 in there then it MUST NOT treat that as valid by only seeing zeroes in the two low order bits. (And btw, I assume network byte order is generically understood here too, not sure if that also needs to be stated, probably not, as that ought be generic for encoding integers within extensions I guess.) - section 2: Is "By default, ... SHOULD drop..." correct? I think what you mean is "By default ... MUST drop" as the case for not dropping is not the default. Or, you could say "SHOULD drop except when... " and not have to mention any default. (Note: I'm only questioning the wording here, not the semantics, which seems fine.) - section 6: I didn't read all the references, but is there anything to be said about possible differences in the duration for which one is vulnerable to not yet seeing a revocation for a node that sees this extension, vs a node that does origin validation itself? If a node having seen this extension were to remember the origin for a lot longer than one that does validation itself, then that might be worth noting here, but I don't know how the relative timings might pan out, so not sure. (And apologies if this is covered in the references I didn't check out;-) |
2016-12-13
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-12
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-10
|
10 | Ralph Droms | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ralph Droms. Sent review to list. |
2016-12-10
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-08
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2016-12-07
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-12-06
|
10 | Ralph Droms | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ralph Droms. Sent review to list. |
2016-12-01
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2016-12-01
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2016-11-30
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-30
|
10 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the Non-Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/ the reference for the early registration of value 0x00, "BGP Origin Validation State," will be updated to [ RFC-to-be ]. The IANA Services Operator 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. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-11-30
|
10 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-10.txt |
2016-11-30
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-30
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "David Ward" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, "Randy Bush" , "Keyur Patel" , "Pradosh Mohapatra" , "John Scudder" |
2016-11-30
|
10 | John Scudder | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-24
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. |
2016-11-23
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2016-11-23
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2016-11-17
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-11-17
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-11-17
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2016-11-17
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2016-11-13
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-13
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, "Sandra L. Murphy" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, "Sandra L. Murphy" , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com, aretana@cisco.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG (sidr) to consider the following document: - 'BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community' 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 2016-12-07. 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 defines a new BGP opaque extended community to carry the origination AS validation state inside an autonomous system. IBGP speakers that receive this validation state can configure local policies allowing it to influence their decision process. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-11-13
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15 |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of sidr-origin-validation-signaling-09 === I have a couple of comments about this document (below). I am going to start the IETF Last Call, … === AD Review of sidr-origin-validation-signaling-09 === I have a couple of comments about this document (below). I am going to start the IETF Last Call, and schedule it in the next IESG Telechat, with the expectation that my comments will be addressed before then. Thanks! Alvaro. C1. The reference to rfc7607 should be Informative. C2. [Major] Security Considerations. I think that there is one consideration that should be mentioned in this section: Given that the largest value is preferred (2 = invalid), there is an attack vector where a router in the path (yes, even an internal router) can inject a community indicating that the route is invalid; the communities are not protected. This action could result in inconsistent routing or in even a DoS. I know the document is not explicit about what to do with the validation state (which is ok), but the clear intention (from rfc6811 and rfc7115) is that it will be used to make routing decisions. Please add some text about this potential issue. |
2016-11-11
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-11-11
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com>, aretana@cisco.com from "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com> |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | 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 … 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 is intended as a Standards Track RFC. The document defines a new BGP opaque extended community. Because this is a part of BGP processing which could be used globally and requires interoperable implementations, Standards Track is appropriate. The title page says "Intended status: Standards Track". (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 defines a new BGP opaque extended community to carry the origination AS validation state inside an autonomous system. IBGP speakers that receive this validation state can configure local policies allowing it to influence their decision process. Working Group Summary This document has had consistent interest from the working group. Because it defines a new BGP community, it was reviewed by the idr working group as well. It received significant review by idr. Document Quality The document has been implemented by major router vendors. It is known to be in use in two large IXPs, AMS-IX and DE-CIX. Personnel Document Shepherd: Sandra Murphy Responsible Area Director: 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 document shepherd has reviewed the current document, now and many times over the course of its progress. (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 level of reviews. The document was reviewed in both the sidr and the idr working groups. (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. There is no need for review from any particular or broader perspective. (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 shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document and saw no unaddressed concerns in the working group discussions. (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. (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 disclosure has been filed that references 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? Both working groups (sidr and idr) have strongly supported this work. (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 one has threatened an appeal or expressed 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 thorough. The tools page nits check reports: Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 0 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. The warning has to do an unused reference to RFC4271. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required for this document. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references within this document have been 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? All normative references in this document are RFCs. (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 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. Publication of this document does not change the status of any other document. (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 says it defines a new opaque extended community that is non-transitive. The value 0x00 has already been assigned in the Non-Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types registry, in the First Come First Served range. The IANA Considerations section mentions the registry and the assigned value: IANA has assigned the value 0x00 from the "Non-Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types" registry. The value is called "BGP Origin Validation State Extended Community". (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 this document written in a formal language. |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-06-28
|
09 | Sandra Murphy | Changed document writeup |
2016-06-27
|
09 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-09.txt |
2016-06-27
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Changed document writeup |
2016-04-06
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Notification list changed to "Sandra L. Murphy" <sandy@tislabs.com> |
2016-04-06
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Document shepherd changed to Sandra L. Murphy |
2016-04-06
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | A post-wglc comment requesting a simple change to support other work was presented to the sidr and idr wgs. A few supportive comments and no … A post-wglc comment requesting a simple change to support other work was presented to the sidr and idr wgs. A few supportive comments and no one complained. The idr chairs reviewed the revision as well and approved progression of the draft. |
2016-04-06
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2016-04-06
|
08 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-12-14
|
08 | John Scudder | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-08.txt |
2015-11-12
|
07 | Keyur Patel | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-07.txt |
2015-11-10
|
06 | Keyur Patel | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-06.txt |
2015-11-05
|
05 | Keyur Patel | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-05.txt |
2014-06-02
|
04 | Sandra Murphy | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2014-06-02
|
04 | Sandra Murphy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-02-13
|
04 | Prodosh Mohapatra | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-04.txt |
2013-08-29
|
03 | Prodosh Mohapatra | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-03.txt |
2012-12-07
|
02 | Prodosh Mohapatra | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-02.txt |
2012-02-03
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-08-02
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-01.txt |
2010-11-30
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-00.txt |