rfc9029.original   rfc9029.txt 
IDR Group A. Farrel Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Farrel
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting Request for Comments: 9029 Old Dog Consulting
Updates: 7752 (if approved) March 25, 2021 Updates: 7752 June 2021
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: September 26, 2021 ISSN: 2070-1721
Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-05
Abstract Abstract
RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS). IANA RFC 7752 defines the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).
created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border IANA created a registry consistent with that document called "Border
Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a number of
number of sub-registries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for subregistries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for those
those registries is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126. registries is "Specification Required", as defined in RFC 8126.
This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for
all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance
to the Designated Experts. to the designated experts.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 26, 2021. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9029.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IANA Considerations
2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Normative References
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgements
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] requested "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE)
IANA to create a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link Information Using BGP" [RFC7752] requested IANA to create a registry
State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries. called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters"
The allocation policy applied by IANA for those registries is with a number of subregistries. The allocation policy applied by
"Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126]. IANA for those registries is "Specification Required", as defined in
[RFC8126].
The "Specification Required" policy requires evaluation of any The "Specification Required" policy requires evaluation of any
assignment request by a "Designated Expert" and guidelines for any assignment request by a "designated expert", and guidelines for any
such experts are given in section 5.1 of [RFC7752]. In addition, such experts are given in Section 5.1 of [RFC7752]. In addition,
this policy requires that "the values and their meanings must be this policy requires that "the values and their meanings must be
documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, documented in a permanent and readily available public specification,
in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent
implementations is possible" [RFC8126]. Further, the intention implementations is possible" [RFC8126]. Further, the intention
behind "permanent and readily available" is that "a document can behind "permanent and readily available" is that "a document can
reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA
assignment of the requested value" [RFC8126]. assignment of the requested value" [RFC8126].
Another allocation policy called "Expert Review" is defined in Another allocation policy called "Expert Review" is defined in
[RFC8126]. This policy also requires Expert Review, but has no [RFC8126]. This policy also requires Expert Review but has no
requirement for a formal document. requirement for a formal document.
All reviews by Designated Experts are guided by advice given in the All reviews by designated experts are guided by advice given in the
document that defined the registry and set the allocation policy. document that defined the registry and set the allocation policy.
This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for This document updates [RFC7752] by changing the allocation policy for
all of the registries to "Expert Review" and updating the guidance to all of the registries to "Expert Review" and updating the guidance to
the Designated Experts. the designated experts.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. IANA Considerations 2. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link IANA maintains a registry called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry". This registry contains four State (BGP-LS) Parameters". This registry contains four
sub-registries: subregistries:
o BGP-LS NLRI-Types * BGP-LS NLRI-Types
o BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and * BGP-LS Protocol-IDs
Attribute TLVs
o BGP-LS Protocol-IDs * BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs
o BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs * BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
Attribute TLVs
IANA is requested to change the assignment policy for each of these IANA has changed the assignment policy for each of these registries
registries to "Expert Review". to "Expert Review".
IANA has also added this document as a reference for the registries
mentioned above.
2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts 2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
Section 5.1 of [RFC7752] gives guidance to Designated Experts. This Section 5.1 of [RFC7752] gives guidance to designated experts. This
section replaces that guidance. section replaces that guidance.
In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here, In all cases of review by the designated expert described here, the
the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the designated expert is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use
requested code points. The following points apply to the registries of the requested code points. The following points apply to the
discussed in this document: registries discussed in this document:
1. Application for a code point allocation may be made to the 1. Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
Designated Experts at any time. designated experts at any time and MUST be accompanied by
2. Application for a code point allocation may be made to the
Designated Experts at any time, and MUST be accompanied by
technical documentation explaining the use of the code point. technical documentation explaining the use of the code point.
Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the form of an Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the form of an
Internet-Draft, but MAY arrive in any form that can be reviewed Internet-Draft but MAY arrive in any form that can be reviewed
and exchanged amongst reviewers. and exchanged amongst reviewers.
3. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise 2. The designated experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as working
documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored group documents or that are planned for progression as AD-
documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group. Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered
working group.
4. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts 3. In the case of working group documents, the designated experts
MUST check with the Working Group chairs that there is consensus MUST check with the working group chairs that there is consensus
within the Working Group to make the allocation at this time. In within the working group to make the allocation at this time. In
the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated Experts MUST the case of AD-Sponsored documents, the designated experts MUST
check with the AD for approval to make the allocation at this check with the AD for approval to make the allocation at this
time. time.
5. If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its 4. If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its
successor), the Designated Expert MUST notify the IDR mailing successor), the designated expert MUST notify the IDR mailing
list (or its successor) of the request and MUST provide access to list (or its successor) of the request and MUST provide access to
the document. The Designated Expert MUST allow two weeks for any the document. The designated expert MUST allow two weeks for any
response. Any comments received MUST be considered by the response. Any comments received MUST be considered by the
Designated Expert as part of the subsequent step. designated expert as part of the subsequent step.
6. The Designated Experts MUST then review the assignment requests 5. The designated experts MUST then review the assignment requests
on their technical merit. The Designated Experts MAY raise on their technical merit. The designated experts MAY raise
issues related to the allocation request with the authors and on issues related to the allocation request with the authors and on
the IDR (or successor) mailing list for further consideration the IDR (or successor) mailing list for further consideration
before the assignments are made. before the assignments are made.
7. The Designated Expert MUST ensure that any request for a code 6. The designated expert MUST ensure that any request for a code
point does not conflict with work that is active or already point does not conflict with work that is active or already
published within the IETF. published within the IETF.
8. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will 7. Once the designated experts have granted approval, IANA will
update the registry by marking the allocated code points with a update the registry by marking the allocated code points with a
reference to the associated document. reference to the associated document.
9. In the event that the document is a Working Group document or is 8. In the event that the document is a working group document or is
AD Sponsored, and that document fails to progress to publication AD Sponsored, and that document fails to progress to publication
as an RFC, the Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact IANA to as an RFC, the working group chairs or AD SHOULD contact IANA to
coordinate about marking the code points as deprecated. A coordinate about marking the code points as deprecated. A
deprecated code point is not marked as allocated for use and is deprecated code point is not marked as allocated for use and is
not available for allocation in a future document. The WG chairs not available for allocation in a future document. The WG chairs
may inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely may inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely
de-allocated (i.e., made available for new allocations) at any deallocated (i.e., made available for new allocations) at any
time after it has been deprecated if there is a shortage of time after it has been deprecated if there is a shortage of
unallocated code points in the registry. unallocated code points in the registry.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The security consideration of [RFC7752] still apply. The security considerations described in Section 8 of [RFC7752] still
apply.
Note that the change to the expert review guidelines makes the Note that the change to the Expert Review guidelines makes the
registry and the Designated Experts slightly more vulnerable to registry and the designated experts slightly more vulnerable to
denial of service attacks through excessive and bogus requests for denial-of-service attacks through excessive and bogus requests for
code points. It is expected that the registry cannot be effectively code points. It is expected that the registry cannot be effectively
attacked because the Designated Experts would, themselves, fall to attacked because the designated experts would, themselves, fall to
any such attack first. Designated Experts are expected to report to any such attack first. Designated experts are expected to report to
the IDR working group chairs and responsible Area Director if they the IDR Working Group chairs and responsible Area Director if they
believe an attack to be in progress, and should immediately halt all believe an attack to be in progress and should immediately halt all
requests for allocation. This may temporarily block all legitimate requests for allocation. This may temporarily block all legitimate
requests until mitigations have been put in place. requests until mitigations have been put in place.
4. Acknowledgements 4. Normative References
This work is based on the IANA considerations section of [RFC7752].
The author thanks the people who worked on that document.
The author would like to be able to thank John Scudder for suggesting
the need for this document.
Thanks to John Scudder, Donald Eastlake, Ketan Talaulikar, and Alvaro
Retana for review, comments, and discussion.
Additional thanks to Gyan Mishra, Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Les
Ginsberg, Bruno Decraene, Benjamin Kaduk, and Martin Vigoureux for
engaging in discussion on the details of this work.
5. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at line 223
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Acknowledgements
This work is based on the IANA Considerations described in Section 5
of [RFC7752]. The author thanks the people who worked on that
document.
The author would like to thank John Scudder for suggesting the need
for this document.
Thanks to John Scudder, Donald Eastlake 3rd, Ketan Talaulikar, and
Alvaro Retana for their review, comments, and discussion.
Additional thanks to Gyan Mishra, Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Les
Ginsberg, Bruno Decraene, Benjamin Kaduk, and Martin Vigoureux for
engaging in discussion on the details of this work.
Author's Address Author's Address
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
108 lines changed or deleted 108 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/