Network Working Group J. Scudder
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Updates: 5492 (if approved) July 2, 2015
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 3, 2016
Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures
draft-scudder-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.txt
Abstract
This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration
procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range
formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three
new ranges, respectively designated as "Standards Action",
"Experimental" and "Reserved".
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Scudder Expires January 3, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Capability Codes Registration Procedures July 2015
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
[RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as
"Reserved for Private Use". Subsequent experience has shown this to
be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors. BGP
Capability Codes do not meet the criteria for "Reserved for Private
Use" described in [RFC5226] S. 4.1. An example of a legitimate
"private use" code point might be a BGP community [RFC1997] value
assigned for use within a given AS, but no analogous use of
Capabilities exists.
Accordingly, this document revises the registration procedures for
the range 128-255, as follows, using the terminology defined in
[RFC5226]:
128-250: Standards Action
251-254: Experimental Use
255: Reserved
The procedures for the ranges 1-63 and 64-127 are unchanged,
remaining "IETF Review" and "First Come First Served" respectively.
2. Discussion
The reason for choosing Standards Action and not some other policy is
that it provides opportunity for working group oversight of the
space, when and if it becomes depleted. At time of writing there is
ample space available in both the IETF Review and First Come First
Served portions of the 1-127 range. Note that any unallocated space
in this range can be reclassified with some other allocation policy
in the future, if needed.
Scudder Expires January 3, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Capability Codes Registration Procedures July 2015
The reason for providing an Experimental Use range is to preserve a
range for use during early development. Although there are few
practical differences between Experimental and Private Use, the
change both makes it clear that code points from this space should
not be used long-term or in shipping products, and reduces the
consumption of the scarce Capability Code space expended for this
purpose. Once classified as Experimental, it should be considered
difficult to reclassify the space for some other purpose in the
future.
The reason for reserving the maximum value is that it may be useful
in the future if extension of the number space is needed.
3. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to revise the "Capability Codes" registry as
described in Section 1.
4. Security Considerations
This revision to registration procedures does not change the
underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC5492] and
[RFC4271].
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alia Atlas, Jeff Haas and Sue Hares for review and
comments.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP
Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
Scudder Expires January 3, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Capability Codes Registration Procedures July 2015
Author's Address
John Scudder
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: jgs@juniper.net
Scudder Expires January 3, 2016 [Page 4]