Skip to main content

The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 2
draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-05-01
06 Bo Wu Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Bo Wu. Sent review to list.
2022-04-29
06 Michael Tüxen Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Michael Tüxen. Sent review to list.
2022-04-29
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2022-04-28
06 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2022-04-28
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2022-04-28
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2022-04-26
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-04-26
06 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

We understand that references to RFC 8210 will be replaced with references to this document. If that isn't correct, please let us know.

First, in the rpki-rtr-pdu registry on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki/

the registry will be updated as follows:

Protocol PDU
Version Type Description   Reference
-------- ---- --------------- ---------
0-2 0 Serial Notify   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 1 Serial Query   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 2 Reset Query   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 3 Cache Response           [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 4 IPv4 Prefix   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 6 IPv6 Prefix   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 7 End of Data   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 8 Cache Reset   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0 9 Reserved   [ RFC-to-be ]
1-2 9 Router Key   [ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 10 Error Report   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]
0-1 11 Reserved   [ RFC-to-be ]
2 11 ASPA   [ RFC-to-be ]
0-2 255 Reserved   [RFC6810][ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the rpki-rtr-error registry also on the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki/

the following registration will be updated as follows:

Error Code: 8
Description: Unexpected Protocol Version
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2022-04-25
06 Mohamed Boucadair Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Mohamed Boucadair. Sent review to list.
2022-04-22
06 Luc André Burdet Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mohamed Boucadair
2022-04-22
06 Luc André Burdet Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mohamed Boucadair
2022-04-22
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu
2022-04-22
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu
2022-04-21
06 Alvaro Retana Requested Telechat review by RTGDIR
2022-04-21
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2022-04-21
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2022-04-19
06 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Michael Tüxen
2022-04-19
06 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Michael Tüxen
2022-04-16
06 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Sean Turner
2022-04-16
06 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Sean Turner
2022-04-15
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-04-15
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-04-29):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-04-29):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06.txt> (The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 2) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the SIDR Operations WG (sidrops) to
consider the following document: - 'The Resource Public Key Infrastructure
(RPKI) to Router Protocol,
  Version 2'
  <draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06.txt> 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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-04-29. 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


  In order to verifiably validate the origin Autonomous Systems and
  Autonomous System Paths of BGP announcements, routers need a simple
  but reliable mechanism to receive Resource Public Key Infrastructure
  (RFC 6480) prefix origin data and router keys from a trusted cache.
  This document describes a protocol to deliver them.

  This document describes version 2 of the RPKI-Router protocol.  RFC
  6810
describes version 0, and RFC 8210 describes version 1.  This
  document obsoletes and replaces RFC 8210.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis/



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




2022-04-15
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-04-15
06 Warren Kumari Last call was requested
2022-04-15
06 Warren Kumari Last call announcement was generated
2022-04-15
06 Warren Kumari Ballot approval text was generated
2022-04-15
06 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2022-04-15
06 Warren Kumari Ballot writeup was changed
2022-04-15
06 (System) Changed action holders to Warren Kumari (IESG state changed)
2022-04-15
06 Warren Kumari IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-02-15
06 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06.txt
2022-02-15
06 (System) New version approved
2022-02-15
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
2022-02-15
06 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed Standard

(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:

  In order to verifiably validate the origin Autonomous Systems and
  Autonomous System Paths of BGP announcements, routers need a simple
  but reliable mechanism to receive Resource Public Key Infrastructure
  (RFC 6480) prefix origin data and router keys from a trusted cache.
  This document describes a protocol to deliver them.

  This document describes version 2 of the RPKI-Router protocol.  RFC
  6810
describes version 0, and RFC 8210 describes version 1.  This
  document updates RFC 8210.


Working Group Summary:

This -bis document got some solid review in WG mailing-list discussions, nothing stood out as controversial.

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, YANG 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?

There are existing implementations for the rpki-rtr protocol, this -bis changes the protocol version, and adds support for
ASPA PDU types, and fixes some race-conditions in ROA PDUs.

Personnel:

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

Shepherd: chris morrow (morrowc@ops-netman.net)
RespAD: warren kumari (warren@kumari.net)


(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 read through several versions of this document. This version is ready for publication
says the WG and the shepherd.

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

no concerns

(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 review required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No 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?

Yes, no IPR disclosures required.

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

No.

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

Solid consensus was achieved.

(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 appeals threats nor discussion of same.

(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.

There is 1 outdated reference:
  draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-06 -> 07
this will get sorted before publication (there is likely 1 more update for that draft anyway, because <reasons>)

There are 3 'obsolete normative references':
  RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925)
  RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
  RFC 8208 (Obsoleted by RFC 8608)

these seem fine and will get sorted before publication as well.

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

There are no mib/yang/etc. requirements in this document.

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

yes, all references are properly categorized.

(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?

Yes:
  I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile

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

no.

(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.

The existing rfc8210  will be updated, since this is: 8210-bis.

(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 8126).

There are the expected IANA changes to the existing rpki-rtr-pdu fields, these seem normal to the shepherd.

(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.

none

(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, YANG modules, etc.

no automated checks required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?


no yang here.
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow Responsible AD changed to Warren Kumari
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2022-02-13
05 Chris Morrow
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 1 November 2019.

(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?

Proposed Standard

(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:

  In order to verifiably validate the origin Autonomous Systems and
  Autonomous System Paths of BGP announcements, routers need a simple
  but reliable mechanism to receive Resource Public Key Infrastructure
  (RFC 6480) prefix origin data and router keys from a trusted cache.
  This document describes a protocol to deliver them.

  This document describes version 2 of the RPKI-Router protocol.  RFC
  6810
describes version 0, and RFC 8210 describes version 1.  This
  document updates RFC 8210.


Working Group Summary:

This -bis document got some solid review in WG mailing-list discussions, nothing stood out as controversial.

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, YANG 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?

There are existing implementations for the rpki-rtr protocol, this -bis changes the protocol version, and adds support for
ASPA PDU types, and fixes some race-conditions in ROA PDUs.

Personnel:

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

Shepherd: chris morrow (morrowc@ops-netman.net)
RespAD: warren kumari (warren@kumari.net)


(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 read through several versions of this document. This version is ready for publication
says the WG and the shepherd.

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

no concerns

(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 review required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No 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?

Yes, no IPR disclosures required.

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

No.

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

Solid consensus was achieved.

(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 appeals threats nor discussion of same.

(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.

There is 1 outdated reference:
  draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-06 -> 07
this will get sorted before publication (there is likely 1 more update for that draft anyway, because <reasons>)

There are 3 'obsolete normative references':
  RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925)
  RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
  RFC 8208 (Obsoleted by RFC 8608)

these seem fine and will get sorted before publication as well.

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

There are no mib/yang/etc. requirements in this document.

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

yes, all references are properly categorized.

(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?

Yes:
  I-D.ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile

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

no.

(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.

The existing rfc8210  will be updated, since this is: 8210-bis.

(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 8126).

There are the expected IANA changes to the existing rpki-rtr-pdu fields, these seem normal to the shepherd.

(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.

none

(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, YANG modules, etc.

no automated checks required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?


no yang here.
2022-02-10
05 Chris Morrow Notification list changed to morrowc@ops-netman.net because the document shepherd was set
2022-02-10
05 Chris Morrow Document shepherd changed to Chris Morrow
2021-12-22
05 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-05.txt
2021-12-22
05 (System) New version approved
2021-12-22
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
2021-12-22
05 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision
2021-12-06
04 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-04.txt
2021-12-06
04 (System) New version approved
2021-12-06
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
2021-12-06
04 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision
2021-08-15
03 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-03.txt
2021-08-15
03 (System) New version approved
2021-08-15
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
2021-08-15
03 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision
2021-02-18
02 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-02.txt
2021-02-18
02 (System) New version approved
2021-02-18
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
2021-02-18
02 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision
2021-02-04
01 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-01.txt
2021-02-04
01 (System) New version approved
2021-02-04
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
2021-02-04
01 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision
2020-10-01
00 (System) Document has expired
2020-03-30
00 Randy Bush New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-00.txt
2020-03-30
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-03-30
00 Randy Bush Set submitter to "Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org
2020-03-30
00 Randy Bush Uploaded new revision