Appeal to the IESG's action for UPA draft----RE: [Lsr] Protocol Action: 'IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-11.txt) (Aijun Wang) - 2025-10-13
Response - 2025-11-06

Summary

The IAB has considered the appeal from Aijun Wang, filed on 13th October 2025. Roman Danyliw recused himself from consideration of this appeal.

The appeal challenges the IESG’s decision to advance the Unreachable Prefix Announcement (UPA) draft, asserting that the draft’s use of LSInfinity in OSPF contradicts the behaviour specified by RFC 2328 and hereby creates a conflicting or non-viable standard. The appeal further requests that the IAB instruct members of the IESG, Routing ADs, LSR WG chairs, and/or authors to respond to the appellant’s technical claims, or return the document to the LSR WG.

In considering this appeal, the IAB examined the issue under RFC 2026 § 6.5.1 (b) — whether the Working Group made an incorrect technical choice that places the quality or integrity of its product in significant jeopardy. After reviewing the claimed technical error and the related discussions, the IAB finds that the IESG fulfilled its role correctly per the relevant BCPs in processing and approving the draft. Accordingly, the IAB declines to take further action.

Additional Details

The IAB reviewed the technical disagreement raised in this appeal, focusing on whether the WG made an incorrect technical choice that would place the quality or integrity of its product in significant jeopardy, as defined in RFC 2026 § 6.5.1 (b).

Summary of the Dispute

The appellant claims that the UPA draft conflicts with RFC 2328 by permitting the use of the LSInfinity metric in OSPF LSAs propagated across ABRs (for UPA), which RFC 2328 prohibits. The appellant also notes that the UPA draft does not explicitly update RFC 2328. The concern raised is that this contradiction makes the UPA mechanism non-functional or inconsistent with base OSPF behaviour.

WG and IESG Consideration

This issue was discussed within the LSR WG and during IESG evaluation. The appellant’s concerns about contradictions with RFC 2328 were raised during IESG evaluation on the LSR mailing list, where the authors and Routing ADs provided clarifications, including in a response by Ketan Talaulikar. The claimed technical error was raised on the LSR mailing list, further addressed by the document authors, and subsequently appealed to the IESG, which provided a response.

In these discussions, it was explained that the UPA draft introduces a scoped extension applying only to LSAs explicitly marked as UPA, permitting UPA-aware ABRs to propagate such LSAs across areas while preserving the LSInfinity metric. This targeted exception does not alter the treatment of other LSAs under RFC 2328, and because it leaves existing behaviour unchanged, the draft does not need to formally update RFC 2328.

IAB Assessment

The IAB finds no indication that the WG made an incorrect technical choice or that the quality or integrity of the work is in jeopardy. The UPA mechanism’s exception to the LSInfinity rule is narrowly scoped, well-defined, and consistent with standard protocol extension practice. The IESG has fulfilled its responsibilities under the relevant BCPs.

The appellant also requested that the IAB take a set of actions. The IAB notes that the scope of its response to appeals is limited as defined in RFC 2026 Section 6.5.2.

The IAB therefore sees no reason to disagree with the IESG’s conclusions and declines to take further action.