Graceful BGP Session Shutdown
RFC 8326

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8326, changed title to 'Graceful BGP Session Shutdown', changed abstract to 'This document standardizes a new well-known BGP community, GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN, to signal the graceful shutdown of paths.  This document also describes operational procedures that use this well-known community to reduce the amount of traffic lost when BGP peering sessions are about to be shut down deliberately, e.g., for planned maintenance.', changed pages to 12, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-03-06, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the BGP Well-known Communities on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/

the early assignment of Attribute Value 0XFFFF0000 appears as follows:

Attribute Value: 0xFFFF0000
Attribute: planned-shut
Reference: [ draft-francois-bgp-gshut ][Pierre_Francois}

This registration will be changed to:

Attribute Value: 0xFFFF0000
Attribute: GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action 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 the list of actions that will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-01-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut@ietf.org, grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, Christopher Morrow , christopher.morrow@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Graceful BGP session shutdown) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG (grow)
to consider the following document: - 'Graceful BGP session shutdown'
  as Proposed Standard

This is a second IETF Last Call. The document had an initial LC as an Informational
document, but the IESG felt it was more appropriate to be Standards Track. As the
Last Call time will run into the end of the year holiday period, we are requesting
a 4-week Last Call.

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 2018-01-11. 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


  This draft standardizes a new well-known BGP community
  GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN to signal the graceful shutdown of paths.  This
  draft also describes operational procedures which use this community
  to reduce the amount of traffic lost when BGP peering sessions are
  about to be shut down deliberately, e.g. for planned maintenance.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut/ballot/


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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc6198: Requirements for the Graceful Shutdown of BGP Sessions (Informational - IETF stream)

As suggested in the IESG Evaluation, STD Track makes more sense for this -- unfortunately, this needs another IETF LC (Std Track is 4 weeks, Informational was only 2 weeks).
Change discussed with authors, new version to be posted and then new LC started.

[Ballot comment]
I also believe this should be standards track. Or is there any good reason why it should not be standards track similar as other docs that define well known communities?

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting "yes" because I think it's important to publish this. But, like Alvaro,  I wonder why this is not standards track, BCP, or just about anything but informational. So I support his DISCUSS, including his the comments on how to resolve it.

-1, last paragraph: This references RFC 8174, but does not use the actual 8174 boilerplate. Is there a reason not to do so?

[Ballot comment]
I also wonder why this is not standards track, BCP, or just about anything but informational. So I support Alvaro's DISCUSS, including his the comments on how to resolve it.

-1, last paragraph: This references RFC 8174, but does not use the actual 8174 boilerplate. Is there a reason not to do so?

[Ballot discuss]
Why is this document not in the Standards Track?  I ask because I think that the definition of a well-known community (one which has "global significance and their operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP speaker" [rfc1997], in other words, everywhere!) should result in a Standards Track specification, and not in an Informational document.  I couldn't find any specific justification for the status in the writeups (Shepherd or Ballot), nor a related discussion in the archive.

To resolve this DISCUSS, I would prefer to see a change in the status, but will yield to WG consensus (so a pointer to that discussion would be enough).

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the BGP Well-known Communities on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/

the early assignment of Attribute Value 0XFFFF0000 appears as follows:

Attribute Value: 0xFFFF0000
Attribute: planned-shut
Reference: [ draft-francois-bgp-gshut ][Pierre_Francois}

This registration will be changed to:

Attribute Value: 0xFFFF0000
Attribute: GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action 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 Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut@ietf.org, grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, Christopher Morrow , christopher.morrow@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Graceful BGP session shutdown) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG (grow)
to consider the following document: - 'Graceful BGP session shutdown'
  as Informational RFC

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 2017-10-11. 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


  This draft standardizes a new well-known BGP community
  GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN to signal the graceful shutdown of paths.  This
  draft also describes operational procedures which use this community
  to reduce the amount of traffic lost when BGP peering sessions are
  about to be shut down deliberately, e.g. for planned maintenance.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut/ballot/


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

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?

Informational

(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

  This draft standardizes a new well-known BGP community
  GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN to signal the graceful shutdown of paths.  This
  draft also describes operational procedures which use this community
  to reduce the amount of traffic lost when BGP peering sessions are
  about to be shut down deliberately, e.g. for planned maintenance.

Working Group Summary

This document spent a long time in WG (10 years or so), with progress early on, then awaiting other work to finish.. and finally a last surge of call/response/fixes and now we're all consensused up and believe this is a great step forward for the tubes!

Document Quality

There are existing platforms which respect the draft community, the document got some last minute cleanup / reorg and is in good shape today.

Personnel

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

Shepherd: Christopher Morrow (me)
ResponsibleAD: Warren Kumari

(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 reviewed the document early on in it's process, then in the final-throes suggested some edits and reviewed response comments both from the authors and from collaborators.

(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.

I do not believe there is expert 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

(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? 

quite solid, actually.

(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.

There is one note about code comments which doesn't apply
There is one outdated reference which we'll fix in auth48/etc.

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

There is no review required for community additions.

(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.

no

(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).

IANA is being asked to add to a registry, this seems fine for this document.

(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.

no new registries.

(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 needed reviews.