# Document History
Document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp/
Title: Guidance to Avoid Carrying RPKI Validation States in Transitive BGP Path
Attributes
Revision: draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-07
Shepherd: Luigi Iannone (ggx@gigix.net)
Writeup Template:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/workinggroup
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
Working Group Last Call on the mailing list shows a broad support for this
document.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
Consensus has been reached via considerate discussion throughout the whole
WGLC. One point has been raised about the need to reference RFC 8097, but
decision was that no direct reference to such document is necessary (see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/I5g6_7LJccw9Qqnz2x2d4PBB1CA/).
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarize 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 showed any form of discontent.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents
of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either
in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)?
This is not a protocol document. It is a Best Current Practice document on
how to operate existing implementations.
# Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews
took place.
No further reviews needed.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review is required.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC
8342?
This document does not contain a YANG Module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence,
no validation and/or check has been performed.
# Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and
ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is clearly written, needed, and ready to be handed off to the
responsible AD.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified and
addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews?
The document does not touch any ops issue.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
This document requests to be published as Best Current Practice. BCP is the
right intended status as the document includes operational guidance and
current thoughts of the community to avoid leaking RPKI validation state in
BGP transitive attributes, and thus preserve the stability of the global
Internet routing system.
Both the Datatracker and front page show the intended status.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To the best
of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain
why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to
publicly-available messages when applicable.
All the co-authors, did state explicitly that they are not aware of any IPR
related to this document. No one else did any IPR disclosure.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is
greater than five, please provide a justification.
Each co-author is clearly willing to be listed as such.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org.
(Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a
rewrite is underway.)
The idnits shows a warning about non-ascii characters. This can be fixed
later on.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
No reference should change type.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references?
There is no reference with restricted access.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP 97) that
are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so, list them.
There are no DOWNREF references.
s
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If
so, what is the plan for their completion?
No normative references are in unclear state or not ready.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.
20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each
newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations
procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
The IANA considerations section does not contain any action.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please
include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The is no new registries requiring Expert Review created in this document.