idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-03.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 (Using the creation date from RFC5492, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2008-05-23) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 15, 2018) is 1979 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Scudder 3 Internet-Draft Juniper Networks 4 Updates: 5492 (if approved) November 15, 2018 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: May 19, 2019 8 Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures 9 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-03.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration 14 procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range 15 formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three 16 new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", 17 "Experimental" and "Reserved". 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2019. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 1. Introduction 65 [RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as 66 "Reserved for Private Use". Subsequent experience has shown this to 67 be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors. BGP 68 Capability Codes do not meet the criteria for "Private Use" described 69 in [RFC8126] section 4.1. An example of a legitimate "private use" 70 code point might be a BGP community [RFC1997] value assigned for use 71 within a given Autonomous System, but no analogous use of 72 Capabilities exists. 74 Accordingly, this document revises the registration procedures for 75 the range 128-255, as follows, using the terminology defined in 76 [RFC8126]: 78 o 128-238: First Come First Served 79 o 239-254: Experimental Use 80 o 255: Reserved 82 The procedures for the ranges 1-63 and 64-127 are unchanged, 83 remaining "IETF Review" and "First Come First Served" respectively. 85 2. Discussion 87 The reason for providing an Experimental Use range is to preserve a 88 range for use during early development. Although there are few 89 practical differences between Experimental and Private Use, the 90 change both makes it clear that code points from this space should 91 not be used long-term or in shipping products, and reduces the 92 consumption of the scarce Capability Code space expended for this 93 purpose. Once classified as Experimental, it should be considered 94 difficult to reclassify the space for some other purpose in the 95 future. 97 The reason for reserving the maximum value is that it may be useful 98 in the future if extension of the number space is needed. 100 The reason for designating "IESG" as the change controller for all 101 registrations is that while it should be easy to obtain a Capability 102 Code, once registered it's not a trivial matter to safely and 103 interoperably change the use of that code, and thus working group 104 consensus should be sought before changes are made to existing 105 registrations. 107 Finally, we invite implementors who have used values in the range 108 128-255 to contribute to this draft, so that the values can be 109 included in the registry. Values that have been reported, are 110 included. 112 3. IANA Considerations 114 IANA is requested to revise the "Capability Codes" registry in the 115 "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group as follows. 117 Reference: [RFC5492] and this document. 119 Registry Owner/Change Controller: IESG 121 Registration procedures: 123 +---------+-------------------------+ 124 | Range | Registration Procedures | 125 +---------+-------------------------+ 126 | 0 | Reserved | 127 | 1-63 | IETF Review | 128 | 64-238 | First Come First Served | 129 | 239-254 | Experimental | 130 | 255 | Reserved | 131 +---------+-------------------------+ 133 Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of 134 all registrations, once made, is "IESG". 136 IANA is requested to perform the following new allocations within the 137 "Capability Codes" registry: 139 +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 140 | Value | Description | Reference | 141 +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 142 | 128 | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) | (this | 143 | | | document) | 144 | 129 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | 145 | | (deprecated) | document) | 146 | 130 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | 147 | | (deprecated) | document) | 148 | 255 | Reserved | (this | 149 | | | document) | 150 +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 152 4. Security Considerations 154 This revision to registration procedures does not change the 155 underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC5492] and 156 [RFC4271]. 158 5. Acknowledgements 160 Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, Jeff Haas, Sue 161 Hares, Acee Lindem, Thomas Mangin, and Tom Petch for review and 162 comments. 164 6. References 166 6.1. Normative References 168 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 169 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 170 2009, . 172 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 173 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 174 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 175 . 177 6.2. Informative References 179 [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities 180 Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, 181 . 183 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 184 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 185 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 186 . 188 Author's Address 190 John Scudder 191 Juniper Networks 192 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 193 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 194 USA 196 Email: jgs@juniper.net