idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08.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 30, 2020) is 1450 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 182, 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 30, 2020 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: November 1, 2020 8 Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures 9 draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08 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 November 1, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 1. Introduction 65 The Border Gateway Protocol uses a mechanism called "Capability 66 Advertisement" [RFC5492] to enable BGP peers to tell one another 67 about their optional protocol extensions. These so-called 68 "Capabilities" are signaled using code points called "Capability 69 Codes". 71 [RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as 72 "Reserved for Private Use". Subsequent experience has shown this to 73 be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors. 75 Accordingly, this document revises the registration procedures for 76 the range 128-255, as follows, using the terminology defined in 77 [RFC8126]: 79 o 128-238: First Come First Served 80 o 239-254: Experimental Use 81 o 255: Reserved 83 The procedures for the ranges 1-63 and 64-127 are unchanged, 84 remaining "IETF Review" and "First Come First Served" respectively. 86 2. Discussion 88 The reason for providing an Experimental Use range is to preserve a 89 range for use during early development. Although there are few 90 practical differences between Experimental and Private Use, the 91 change both makes it clear that code points from this space should 92 not be used long-term or in shipping products, and reduces the 93 consumption of the scarce Capability Code space expended for this 94 purpose. Once classified as Experimental, it should be considered 95 difficult to reclassify the space for some other purpose in the 96 future. 98 The reason for reserving the maximum value is that it may be useful 99 in the future if extension of the number space is needed. 101 3. IANA Considerations 103 IANA is requested to revise the "Capability Codes" registry in the 104 "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group as follows. 106 Reference: [RFC5492] and this document. 108 Registration procedures: 110 +---------+-------------------------+ 111 | Range | Registration Procedures | 112 +---------+-------------------------+ 113 | 1-63 | IETF Review | 114 | 64-238 | First Come First Served | 115 | 239-254 | Experimental | 116 +---------+-------------------------+ 118 Table 1 120 Note: a separate "owner" column is not provided because the owner of 121 all registrations, once made, is "IESG". 123 IANA is requested to perform the following new allocations within the 124 "Capability Codes" registry: 126 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 127 | Value | Description | Reference / | 128 | | | Change | 129 | | | Controller | 130 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 131 | 128 | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) | (this | 132 | | | document) | 133 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 134 | 129 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | 135 | | (deprecated), prestandard Routing | document) | 136 | | Policy Distribution (deprecated) | | 137 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 138 | 130 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | 139 | | (deprecated) | document) | 140 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 141 | 131 | Prestandard Multisession (deprecated) | (this | 142 | | | document) | 143 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 144 | 184 | Prestandard FQDN (deprecated) | (this | 145 | | | document) | 146 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 147 | 185 | Prestandard OPERATIONAL message | (this | 148 | | (deprecated) | document) | 149 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 150 | 255 | Reserved | (this | 151 | | | document) | 152 +-------+--------------------------------------------+--------------+ 154 Table 2 156 4. Security Considerations 158 This revision to registration procedures does not change the 159 underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC5492] and 160 [RFC4271]. 162 5. Acknowledgements 164 Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, Jie Dong, Jeff 165 Haas, Sue Hares, Acee Lindem, Thomas Mangin, and Tom Petch for review 166 and comments. 168 6. References 169 6.1. Normative References 171 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 172 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 173 2009, . 175 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 176 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 177 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 178 . 180 6.2. Informative References 182 [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities 183 Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, 184 . 186 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 187 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 188 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 189 . 191 Author's Address 193 John Scudder 194 Juniper Networks 195 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 196 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 197 USA 199 Email: jgs@juniper.net