idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC8126, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 8, 2020) is 1206 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7752 (Obsoleted by RFC 9552) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR Group A. Farrel 3 Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting 4 Updates: 7752 (if approved) December 8, 2020 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: June 11, 2021 8 Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link 9 State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries 10 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02 12 Abstract 14 RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS). IANA 15 created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border 16 Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a 17 number of sub-registries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for 18 those registries is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126. 20 This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for 21 all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance 22 to the Designated Experts. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2021. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1. Introduction 69 Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] requested 70 IANA to create a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link 71 State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries. 72 The allocation policy applied by IANA for those registries is 73 "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126]. 75 The "Specification Required" policy requires evaluation of any 76 assignment request by a "Designated Expert" and guidelines for any 77 such experts are given in section 5.1 of [RFC7752]. In addition, 78 this policy requires that "the values and their meanings must be 79 documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, 80 in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent 81 implementations is possible" [RFC8126]. Further, the intention 82 behind "permanent and readily available" is that "a document can 83 reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA 84 assignment of the requested value" [RFC8126]. 86 Another allocation policy called "Expert Review" is defined in 87 [RFC8126]. This policy also requires Expert Review, but has no 88 requirement for a formal document. 90 All reviews by Designated Experts are guided by advice given in the 91 document that defined the registry and set the allocation policy. 93 This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for 94 all of the registries to "Expert Review" and updating the guidance to 95 the Designated Experts. 97 1.1. Requirements Language 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 101 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 102 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 103 capitals, as shown here. 105 2. IANA Considerations 107 IANA maintains a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link 108 State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry". This registry contains four 109 sub-registries: 111 o BGP-LS NLRI-Types 113 o BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and 114 Attribute TLVs 116 o BGP-LS Protocol-IDs 118 o BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs 120 IANA is requested to change the assignment policy for each of these 121 registries to "Expert Review". 123 2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts 125 Section 5.1 of [RFC7752] gives guidance to Designated Experts. This 126 section replaces that guidance. 128 In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here, 129 the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the 130 requested code points. The following points apply to the registries 131 discussed in this document: 133 1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the 134 Designated Experts at any time. 136 2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise 137 from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group 138 documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored 139 documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group. 141 3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts 142 SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is 143 consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this 144 time. In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated 145 Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the 146 allocation at this time. 148 4. If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its 149 successor), the Designated Expert SHOULD notify the IDR mailing 150 list (or its successor) of the request and allow two weeks for 151 any response. Any comments received SHOULD be considered by the 152 Designated Expert as part of the subsequent step. 154 5. The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests 155 on their technical merit. The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek 156 to overrule IETF consensus, but they MAY raise issues for further 157 consideration before the assignments are made. 159 6. The Designated Expert MUST attempt to ensure that any request for 160 a code point does not conflict with work that is active or 161 already published within the IETF. 163 7. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will 164 update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a 165 reference to the associated document. 167 8. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the 168 Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact the Designated Expert 169 to coordinate with IANA over marking the code points as 170 deprecated following similar principles to Section 3.3 of 171 [RFC7120]. 173 3. Security Considerations 175 The security consideration of [RFC7752] still apply. 177 Note that the change to the expert review guidelines makes the 178 registry and the Designated Experts slightly more vulnerable to 179 denial of service attacks through excessive and bogus requests for 180 code points. It is expected that the registry cannot be effectively 181 attacked because the Designated Experts would, themselves, fall to 182 any such attack first. Designated Experts are expected to report to 183 the IDR working group chairs and responsible Area Director if they 184 believe an attack to be in progress, and should immediately halt all 185 requests for allocation. This may temporarily block all legitimate 186 requests until mitigations have been put in place. 188 4. Acknowledgements 190 This work is based on the IANA considerations section of [RFC7752]. 191 The author thanks the people who worked on that document. 193 The author would like to be able to thank John Scudder for suggesting 194 the need for this document. 196 Thanks to John Scudder, Donald Eastlake, Ketan Talaulikar, and Alvaro 197 Retana for review, comments, and discussion. 199 Additional thanks to Gyan Mishra, Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Les 200 Ginsberg, and Bruno Decraene for engaging in discussion on the 201 details of this work. 203 5. Normative References 205 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 206 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 207 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 208 . 210 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 211 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 212 2014, . 214 [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and 215 S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and 216 Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, 217 DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, 218 . 220 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 221 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 222 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 223 . 225 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 226 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 227 May 2017, . 229 Author's Address 231 Adrian Farrel 232 Old Dog Consulting 234 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk