idnits 2.17.1 draft-scudder-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.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 (July 2, 2015) is 3214 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 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 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) July 2, 2015 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: January 3, 2016 8 Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures 9 draft-scudder-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.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 "Standards Action", 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 http://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 January 3, 2016. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2015 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 (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 "Reserved for Private 69 Use" described in [RFC5226] S. 4.1. An example of a legitimate 70 "private use" code point might be a BGP community [RFC1997] value 71 assigned for use within a given AS, 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 [RFC5226]: 78 128-250: Standards Action 80 251-254: Experimental Use 82 255: Reserved 84 The procedures for the ranges 1-63 and 64-127 are unchanged, 85 remaining "IETF Review" and "First Come First Served" respectively. 87 2. Discussion 89 The reason for choosing Standards Action and not some other policy is 90 that it provides opportunity for working group oversight of the 91 space, when and if it becomes depleted. At time of writing there is 92 ample space available in both the IETF Review and First Come First 93 Served portions of the 1-127 range. Note that any unallocated space 94 in this range can be reclassified with some other allocation policy 95 in the future, if needed. 97 The reason for providing an Experimental Use range is to preserve a 98 range for use during early development. Although there are few 99 practical differences between Experimental and Private Use, the 100 change both makes it clear that code points from this space should 101 not be used long-term or in shipping products, and reduces the 102 consumption of the scarce Capability Code space expended for this 103 purpose. Once classified as Experimental, it should be considered 104 difficult to reclassify the space for some other purpose in the 105 future. 107 The reason for reserving the maximum value is that it may be useful 108 in the future if extension of the number space is needed. 110 3. IANA Considerations 112 IANA is requested to revise the "Capability Codes" registry as 113 described in Section 1. 115 4. Security Considerations 117 This revision to registration procedures does not change the 118 underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC5492] and 119 [RFC4271]. 121 5. Acknowledgements 123 Thanks to Alia Atlas, Jeff Haas and Sue Hares for review and 124 comments. 126 6. References 128 6.1. Normative References 130 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 131 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 132 May 2008. 134 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 135 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. 137 6.2. Informative References 139 [RFC1997] Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP 140 Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996. 142 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 143 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 145 Author's Address 147 John Scudder 148 Juniper Networks 149 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 150 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 151 USA 153 Email: jgs@juniper.net