Registry and Extensions for P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel Attribute Flags
RFC 7902

[Ballot comment]
I do not suggest a change to the draft, but I am curious why the "Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags" registry needs a standards-action policy. It's pretty obvious why for the main flag registry, due to the small value-space. Are people concerned that the Additional flag will also run out of space? Or that people will define "bad" or non-interoperable extensions?

[Ballot comment]
Section 2:

* Some of the MUST and MUST NOT requirements are stated on the message itself without stating the sender side rules.

e.g.

  The Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community MUST
  NOT be carried by a given BGP UPDATE message unless the following
  conditions both hold:

It would be far more useful to state this as a sender rule

e.g.

  The sender of a given BGP UPDATE message MUST NOT include an Additional
  PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community unless the following
  conditions both hold:

* The following text seems to be redundant as there is a receiver rule that verifies exactly this. What exactly is the intent of this text and who is expected to adhere to/enforce it?

  If a given BGP UPDATE message is carrying a PMSI Tunnel attribute,
  but is not carrying an Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags
  Extended Community, then the Extension flag in the PMSI Tunnel
  attribute MUST be clear.

[Ballot comment]

The discussion resulting from the secdir review [1] lead
to some suggested changes that haven't yet been included
in an update. This is just to remind ourselves about
that.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06525.html

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, a new registry is to be created called the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Attribute Flags registry. This new registry will be a subregistraty of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/

Management of the new registry will be done through Standards Action as defined in RFC5226. There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows:

Bit Position Description Reference
(Left to Right)
---------------+------------------------------------------+-------------
0 unassigned
1 Extension [ RFC-to-be ]
2 unassigned
3 unassigned
4 unassigned
5 unassigned
6 unassigned
7 Leaf Information Required (L) [ RFC6514 ]

Second, in the Transitive Opaque Extended Community Sub-Types subregistry in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

a single, new sub-type will be registered as follows:

Sub-Type Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags
Reference [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

This codepoint is to come from the "First Come, First Served" range in the registry.

Third, a new registry is to be created called the Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags registry. This new registry will be located as a subregistry of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

The new registry will be managed via Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226. There are no initial registrations in the new registry.

IANA 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registry and Extensions for P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel Attribute Flags) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled Services WG (bess)
to consider the following document:
- 'Registry and Extensions for P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel
  Attribute Flags'
  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 2016-04-13. 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


  The BGP-based control procedures for Multicast Virtual Private
  Networks make use of a BGP attribute known as the "P-Multicast
  Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel" attribute.  The attribute contains a
  one-octet "Flags" field.  The purpose of this document is to
  establish an IANA registry for the assignment of the bits in this
  field.  Since the Flags field contains only eight bits, this document
  also defines a new BGP Extended Community, "Additional PMSI Tunnel
  Attribute Flags", that can be used to carry additional flags for the
  PMSI Tunnel attribute.  This document updates RFC 6514.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags/ballot/


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

==  AD Review  ==

Eric/Thomas:

Hi!  I just read the document, short and sweet. :-)

I do have a couple of suggestions, please see below. 

The only significant comment I have is that there is no reference at all to RFC4360 — it should be there given that a new Extended Community is being defined.

I will start the IETF Last Call and place the document in the next available IESG Telechat.  We can take care of any updates on the way.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

Where the new Extended Community is introduced, it might be nice to include a figure and highlight the bit positions to avoid any confusion.
Put a reference to RFC4360 in the Security Considerations.

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?

This Document requests the status of Proposed Standard. This is indicated in the header.
This is consistent with the body of the Document which requests the creation of a registry
for a new BGP Extended Community.

(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

  The BGP-based control procedures for Multicast Virtual Private
  Networks make use of a BGP attribute known as the "P-Multicast
  Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel" attribute.  The attribute contains a
  one-octet "Flags" field.  The purpose of this document is to
  establish an IANA registry for the assignment of the bits in this
  field.  Since the Flags field contains only eight bits, this document
  also defines a new BGP Extended Community, "Additional PMSI Tunnel
  Attribute Flags", that can be used to carry additional flags for the
  PMSI Tunnel attribute.  This document updates RFC 6514.

Working Group Summary

  This document fills a hole in previous specification (the lack of creation of a registry).
  This Document, by decision of the BESS WG Chairs, has been adopted as a Working Group Document based on the initial -00 individual I-D.

Document Quality

  The Document is well written, concise and easy to understand.

Personnel

  Martin Vigoureux is the Document SHepherd
  Alvaro Retana is the responsible Area Director

(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 done a complete review of the Document, including the IANA section.
This led to some updates. The Document is ready for publication.

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

No such concern.

(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

(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 specific issue or concern

(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

(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 has been disclosed against 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? 

Consensus is solid.

(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

(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 ID nits check is clean

(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 required.

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

Yes

(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?

No

(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.

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.

This Document updates RFC 6514. This is indicated in the header and in the Abstract.
Reason for such an Update is also given.

(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).

The Document Shepherd has paid specific attention to the IANA section.
It is consistent with the body of the Document and more generally follows the guidelines of RFC 5226

(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.

A new registry will be created if the Document is published as an RFC but the policy is Standard Action

(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.

No section written in a formal language.