Skip to main content

Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): Protocol Specification
RFC 3913

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from <fenner@research.att.com>, <bcain@mediaone.net>, <jhall@maoz.com> to (None)
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Steven Bellovin
2004-10-01
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2004-10-01
06 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 3913' added by Amy Vezza
2004-09-28
06 (System) RFC published
2004-09-21
06 Bill Fenner
In Author's 48 Hours:

From: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 3913 <ietf-bgmp-spec-06.txt> NOW
        AVAILABLE
Date: Tue, …
In Author's 48 Hours:

From: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 3913 <ietf-bgmp-spec-06.txt> NOW
        AVAILABLE
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:54:58 -0700
2004-06-16
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2004-06-15
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2004-06-15
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2004-06-15
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2004-06-10
06 Bill Fenner State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Bill Fenner
2004-02-19
06 Ned Freed [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ned Freed by Ned Freed
2004-02-12
06 Alex Zinin [Note]: 'Back on agenda to check that comments have been addressed.' has been cleared by Alex Zinin
2004-02-06
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-02-05
2004-02-05
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2004-02-05
06 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Steve Bellovin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Steve Bellovin
2004-02-04
06 Steven Bellovin
[Ballot discuss]
This document is using 3618's security considerations.  But 3618 is Experimental, and thus was not held to as high a standard.  This document …
[Ballot discuss]
This document is using 3618's security considerations.  But 3618 is Experimental, and thus was not held to as high a standard.  This document is Informational.  Is TCP MD5 really good enough for something new?
2004-02-04
06 Steven Bellovin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin
2004-02-04
06 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2004-02-01
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2004-01-29
06 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alex Zinin
2004-01-29
06 Alex Zinin Ballot has been issued by Alex Zinin
2004-01-29
06 Alex Zinin Created "Approve" ballot
2004-01-29
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-01-29
06 (System) Last call text was added
2004-01-29
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-01-27
06 Alex Zinin Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-02-05 by Alex Zinin
2004-01-27
06 Alex Zinin [Note]: 'Back on agenda to check that comments have been addressed.' added by Alex Zinin
2004-01-27
06 Alex Zinin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Alex Zinin
2004-01-20
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-06.txt
2003-06-18
06 Alex Zinin State Changes to IESG Evaluation  :: Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation  :: AD Followup by Zinin, Alex
2003-06-18
06 Alex Zinin
IESG comments:

Randy: ops-dir comment

> *****      o Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): Protocol
>              Specification (Informational) …
IESG comments:

Randy: ops-dir comment

> *****      o Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): Protocol
>              Specification (Informational)
>              <draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-05.txt>
>              Token: Zinin, Alex

With a note in the spec like:

NOTE:
  This specification is published for the general information of the
  Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work
  done.  The operational community generally agrees that this protocol
  is not deployable in its current form; it is being published in the
  hopes that it may provide a useful starting point for future work.

.. it doesn't seem to be useful to read much less fix the spec..

==> but still, it might be a good idea to write down why exactly folks
think it is not deployable (if there are some good reasons for that), so
if it is used to base future work on, people wouldn't just bang their head
against the wall again..

But below, a few nits I came across:

==> doesn't have ToC but is more than 15 pages long (only 'xp t', perhaps
missing "." in front of a nroff macro?)

11.  Security Considerations

BGMP uses TCP sessions for all network communication between peers.  TCP
sessions may be secured through the use of IPsec [IPSEC].

==> that must be closest to the shortest security considerations section
I've seen.  If folks thought about security issues of BGMP issues when it
was designed, it might be good idea to write them down.

12.  Authors' Addresses

==> author's address


13.  Normative References
[V4PREFIX]
    D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast Addresses", draft-
    ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-00.txt, Work in progress, June
    2002.

==> I didn't think this is so far along that creating a normative,
*publication-blocking* reference is the right approach.. or..?

smb:

Maybe add something like "As noted above, this protocol design is
incomplete.  Security issues have not yet been analyzed; there may be
significant security challenges in a complete design".
2003-06-18
06 Alex Zinin State Changes to IESG Evaluation  :: AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Zinin, Alex
2003-06-11
06 Bill Fenner
<pre><br> ----- Begin forwarded message:<br> <br> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com><br> Subject: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-05.txt<br> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 05:21:20 +0900<br> To: iesg < …
<pre><br> ----- Begin forwarded message:<br> <br> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com><br> Subject: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-05.txt<br> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 05:21:20 +0900<br> To: iesg <iesg@ietf.org><br> <br> ops-dir comment<br> <br> > *****      o Border Gateway Multicast Protocol (BGMP): Protocol <br> >              Specification (Informational) <br> >              <draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-05.txt><br> >              Token: Zinin, Alex<br> <br> With a note in the spec like:<br> <br> NOTE:<br>  This specification is published for the general information of the<br>  Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work<br>  done.  The operational community generally agrees that this protocol<br>  is not deployable in its current form; it is being published in the<br>  hopes that it may provide a useful starting point for future work.<br> <br> .. it doesn't seem to be useful to read much less fix the spec..<br> <br> ==> but still, it might be a good idea to write down why exactly folks <br> think it is not deployable (if there are some good reasons for that), so <br> if it is used to base future work on, people wouldn't just bang their head <br> against the wall again..<br> <br> But below, a few nits I came across:<br> <br> ==> doesn't have ToC but is more than 15 pages long (only 'xp t', perhaps <br> missing "." in front of a nroff macro?)<br> <br> 11.  Security Considerations<br> <br> BGMP uses TCP sessions for all network communication between peers.  TCP<br> sessions may be secured through the use of IPsec [IPSEC].<br> <br> ==> that must be closest to the shortest security considerations section <br> I've seen.  If folks thought about security issues of BGMP issues when it <br> was designed, it might be good idea to write them down.<br> <br> 12.  Authors' Addresses<br> <br> ==> author's address<br> <br> <br> 13.  Normative References<br> [V4PREFIX]<br>      D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast Addresses", draft-<br>      ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-00.txt, Work in progress, June<br>      2002.<br> <br> ==> I didn't think this is so far along that creating a normative, <br> *publication-blocking* reference is the right approach.. or..?<br> <br> <br> <br> ----- End forwarded message:<br></pre>
2003-06-06
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-05.txt
2003-06-05
06 Alex Zinin Putting on IESG agenda for 06/12/2003
2003-06-05
06 Alex Zinin State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Zinin, Alex
2003-06-05
06 Alex Zinin The spec goes INFO as an archival record.
2003-06-05
06 Alex Zinin Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2003-06-05
06 Alex Zinin Draft Added by Zinin, Alex
2003-05-21
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-04.txt
2002-07-22
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-03.txt
2000-11-29
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-02.txt
2000-03-16
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-01.txt
2000-01-10
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-00.txt