idnits 2.17.1 draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 13, 2017) is 2601 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 228, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5512 (Obsoleted by RFC 9012) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6624 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR Working Group S. Hares 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Intended status: Standards Track March 13, 2017 5 Expires: September 14, 2017 7 BGP Regisries by IDR and other BGP WGs 8 draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt 10 Abstract 12 The BGP Registries at IANA were set up as one of the earliest IANA 13 registries. Over time, the registries have become denoted as 14 requiring "standards action", "early allocation", "FCFS (first-come, 15 first served)", "vendor specific", and "IETF review". This draft 16 proposes that certain BGP registries that are labelled "standards 17 action", "early allocation", or "IETF Review" add to these 18 registration actions a "Expert Review. It also proposes that the 19 chairs of BGP Protocol related WG groups be part of the review team. 20 The intent is that these chairs will be responsible for bringing 21 questionable allocations to their workings attention. 23 The BGP relate working groups are currently the IDR, BESS, SIDROPS, 24 and GROW, but other working groups like SPRING might be added. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. BGP Registries to Change Registration Process on . . . . . . 2 62 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 1. Introduction 70 During 2016, several BGP attributes were squatted upon causing 71 operational problems during the early deployment of large communities 72 [RFC8092]. Due these problems, [RFC8093] deprecated the use of 6 73 attribute numbers. 75 To avoid this problem in the future, it is helpful to increase pace 76 of the early-allocations process and to coordinate the review of key 77 BGP registries. This document proposes to augment existing 78 registration processes for BGP registries with Expert review. 80 This draft proposes that certain BGP registries that are labelled 81 "standards action", "early allocation", or "IETF Review" add to these 82 registration actions a "Expert Review. It also recommends that the 83 chairs of BGP Protocol related WG groups be part of the review team. 85 2. BGP Registries to Change Registration Process on 87 This document proposes the that IETF BGP registries in Table 1 below 88 require their current registration policy plus Expert Review. It 89 recommends that the chairs of the BGP related working groups (e.g. 90 IDR, Bess, SIDROPS, GROW) be a part of this review team. The IESG 91 can define which working groups are BGP working groups, but it is 92 important to get the chairs of the Working Groups that originate or 93 maintain the drafts in Table 1 as part of the review team. 95 If no BGP WG groups remain, the IESG may select designated experts to 96 fulfill this role. 98 ER = Expert Review 100 Table 1 - Registries with changes 101 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+ 102 | BGP registry | Registration | reference | Add ER | 103 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+ 104 | Message Types | Standards Action | RFC4271 | yes | 105 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 106 | BGP Path Attributes | Standards Action | RFC4271 | yes | 107 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 108 | BGP Error | Standards Action | RFC4271 | yes | 109 | (notification) codes | | RFC7313 | | 110 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 111 | BGP Error Subcodes | Standards Action | RFC4271 | yes | 112 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 113 | Open Message Error | Standards Action | RFC4271 | yes | 114 | subcodes | | | | 115 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 116 | Update Message Error | Standards Action | RFC4271 | yes | 117 | subcodes | | | | 118 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 119 | BGP Finite State | Standards Action | RFC6608 | yes | 120 | Machine Error | | | | 121 | subcodes | | | | 122 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 123 | BGP Cease | Standards Action | RFC4486 | yes | 124 | NOTIFICATION | or Early | | | 125 | message subcodes | Allocation | | | 126 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 127 | BGP Route Refresh | Standards Action | RFC7313 | yes | 128 | Message Error | (1-127 range | | | 129 | subcodes | | | | 130 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 131 | BGP Outbound Route | Standards Action | RFC5291 | yes | 132 | Filtering (ORF) | | | | 133 | Types | | | | 134 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 135 | BGP Open Optional | IETF Review | RFC5492 | yes | 136 | Parameter types | | | | 137 +----------------------+---------------------------------------+ 138 | BGP Tunnel | Standards Action | RFC5512 | yes | 139 | Encapsulation | | | | 140 | Attribute Sub-TLVS | | | | 141 +----------------------+---------------------------------------+ 142 | BGP AIGP Attribute | Standards Action | RFC7311 | Yes | 143 ---------------------------------------------------------------+ 144 | BGP Tunnel | Standards Action | RFC5512 | yes | 145 | Encapsulation | | | | 146 | Attribute Sub-TLVS | | | | 147 +----------------------+---------------------------------------+ 148 | BGP AIGP Attribute | Standards Action | RFC7311 | Yes | 149 ---------------------------------------------------------------+ 150 | Route Refresh | Standards Action | RFC7313 | Yes | 151 | Subcdes | (1-127) | | | 152 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 153 | P-Multicast Service | IETF Review | RFC7385 | Yes | 154 | Interface Tunnel | | | | 155 | (PMSI) Tunnel Types | | | | 156 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 157 | P-Multicast Service | Standards Action | RFC7385 | Yes | 158 | Interface Tunnel | | | | 159 | (PMSI) Attribute | | | | 160 | Flags | | | | 161 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 162 | BGP MCAST-VPN Route | Standards Action | RFC7441 | Yes | 163 | Types | | | | 164 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+ 166 The registries in Table 2 have Expert Review. This document requests 167 that IANA increase their designated expert pool by adding to the pool 168 the chairs in BGP related Working Groups (E.g. IDR, BESS, SIDROPS, 169 GROW). 171 ER = Expert Review 173 Table 2 - Registries with Expert Review 174 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+ 175 | BGP registry | Registration | reference | Add ER | 176 +----------------------+------------------+-----------+--------+ 177 | BGP Layer 2 | Expert Review | RFC6624 | yes | 178 | Encapsulation Types | (0-127) | | | 179 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 180 | BGP Layer 2 TLV | Expert Review | RFC6624 | yes | 181 | Types | | | | 182 +--------------------------------------------------------------+ 184 3. Security Considerations 186 Administrative process - Not applicable. 188 4. IANA Considerations 190 For all of the BGP registries or portions of BGP Registries listed in 191 table 1 append "Designated reviewers" to the registration process. 193 This document requests the IESG nominate the chairs of the current 194 BGP related working groups which manage the following base protocols 195 that established the registries: 197 [RFC4271], 199 [RFC4486], 201 [RFC5291], 203 [RFC5492], 205 [RFC5512], 207 [RFC6608], 209 [RFC6624], 211 [RFC7311], 213 [RFC7313], 215 [RFC7385], 217 [RFC7441], 219 5. Acknowledgements 221 The authors would like to thank Alavaro Retana, John Scudder, Jeff 222 Haas, Job Snijders, and members of the IDR and Grow working groups 223 for the active discussion at IETF 97 and post-IETF 97 that inspired 224 this draft. 226 6. Normative References 228 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 229 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 230 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 231 . 233 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 234 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 235 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 236 . 238 [RFC4486] Chen, E. and V. Gillet, "Subcodes for BGP Cease 239 Notification Message", RFC 4486, DOI 10.17487/RFC4486, 240 April 2006, . 242 [RFC5291] Chen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "Outbound Route Filtering 243 Capability for BGP-4", RFC 5291, DOI 10.17487/RFC5291, 244 August 2008, . 246 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 247 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 248 2009, . 250 [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation 251 Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP 252 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, 253 DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009, 254 . 256 [RFC6608] Dong, J., Chen, M., and A. Suryanarayana, "Subcodes for 257 BGP Finite State Machine Error", RFC 6608, 258 DOI 10.17487/RFC6608, May 2012, 259 . 261 [RFC6624] Kompella, K., Kothari, B., and R. Cherukuri, "Layer 2 262 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and 263 Signaling", RFC 6624, DOI 10.17487/RFC6624, May 2012, 264 . 266 [RFC7311] Mohapatra, P., Fernando, R., Rosen, E., and J. Uttaro, 267 "The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP", RFC 7311, 268 DOI 10.17487/RFC7311, August 2014, 269 . 271 [RFC7313] Patel, K., Chen, E., and B. Venkatachalapathy, "Enhanced 272 Route Refresh Capability for BGP-4", RFC 7313, 273 DOI 10.17487/RFC7313, July 2014, 274 . 276 [RFC7385] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "IANA Registry for 277 P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code 278 Points", RFC 7385, DOI 10.17487/RFC7385, October 2014, 279 . 281 [RFC7441] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., and U. Joorde, "Encoding 282 Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Forwarding Equivalence Classes 283 (FECs) in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes", RFC 7441, 284 DOI 10.17487/RFC7441, January 2015, 285 . 287 [RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas, 288 I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute", 289 RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017, 290 . 292 [RFC8093] Snijders, J., "Deprecation of BGP Path Attribute Values 293 30, 31, 129, 241, 242, and 243", RFC 8093, 294 DOI 10.17487/RFC8093, February 2017, 295 . 297 Author's Address 299 Susan Hares 300 Huawei 301 7453 Hickory Hill 302 Saline, MI 48176 303 USA 305 Email: shares@ndzh.com