idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-07.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 (April 15, 2020) is 1465 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: 'RFC1997' is defined on line 180, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 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) April 15, 2020 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: October 17, 2020 8 Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures 9 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-07 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 Use" 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 October 17, 2020. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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. 69 Accordingly, this document revises the registration procedures for 70 the range 128-255, as follows, using the terminology defined in 71 [RFC8126]: 73 o 128-238: First Come First Served 74 o 239-254: Experimental Use 75 o 255: Reserved 77 The procedures for the ranges 1-63 and 64-127 are unchanged, 78 remaining "IETF Review" and "First Come First Served" respectively. 80 2. Discussion 82 The reason for providing an Experimental Use range is to preserve a 83 range for use during early development. Although there are few 84 practical differences between Experimental and Private Use, the 85 change both makes it clear that code points from this space should 86 not be used long-term or in shipping products, and reduces the 87 consumption of the scarce Capability Code space expended for this 88 purpose. Once classified as Experimental, it should be considered 89 difficult to reclassify the space for some other purpose in the 90 future. 92 The reason for reserving the maximum value is that it may be useful 93 in the future if extension of the number space is needed. 95 3. IANA Considerations 97 IANA is requested to revise the "Capability Codes" registry in the 98 "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group as follows. 100 Reference: [RFC5492] and this document. 102 Registration procedures: 104 +---------+-------------------------+ 105 | Range | Registration Procedures | 106 +---------+-------------------------+ 107 | 1-63 | IETF Review | 108 | 64-238 | First Come First Served | 109 | 239-254 | Experimental | 110 +---------+-------------------------+ 112 Table 1 114 Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of 115 all registrations, once made, is "IESG". 117 IANA is requested to perform the following new allocations within the 118 "Capability Codes" registry: 120 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 121 | Valu | Description | Reference / Change Controller | 122 | e | | | 123 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 124 | 128 | Prestandard Route | (this document) | 125 | | Refresh (deprecated) | | 126 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 127 | 129 | Prestandard Outbound | (this document) | 128 | | Route Filtering | | 129 | | (deprecated), | | 130 | | prestandard draft-li- | | 131 | | idr-flowspec-rpd-04 | | 132 | | (deprecated) | | 133 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 134 | 130 | Prestandard Outbound | (this document) | 135 | | Route Filtering | | 136 | | (deprecated) | | 137 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 138 | 131 | Prestandard | (this document) | 139 | | Multisession | | 140 | | (deprecated) | | 141 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 142 | 184 | Prestandard FQDN | (this document) | 143 | | (deprecated) | | 144 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 145 | 185 | OPERATIONAL message | (this document, draft-ietf-idr- | 146 | | (deprecated) | operational-message-00) | 147 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 148 | 255 | Reserved | (this document) | 149 +------+-------------------------+----------------------------------+ 151 Table 2 153 4. Security Considerations 155 This revision to registration procedures does not change the 156 underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC5492] and 157 [RFC4271]. 159 5. Acknowledgements 161 Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, Jie Dong, Jeff 162 Haas, Sue Hares, Acee Lindem, Thomas Mangin, and Tom Petch for review 163 and comments. 165 6. References 167 6.1. Normative References 169 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 170 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 171 2009, . 173 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 174 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 175 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 176 . 178 6.2. Informative References 180 [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities 181 Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, 182 . 184 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 185 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 186 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 187 . 189 Author's Address 191 John Scudder 192 Juniper Networks 193 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 194 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 195 USA 197 Email: jgs@juniper.net