IDR Group                                                      A. Farrel
Internet-Draft                                        Old Dog Consulting
Updates: 7752 (if approved)                                 May 21,                             December 8, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 22, 2020 June 11, 2021

Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link
                  State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
                   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01
                   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02

Abstract

   RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).  IANA
   created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border
   Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a
   number of sub-registries.  The allocation policy applied by IANA for
   those policies registries is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126.

   This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for
   all of the registries to "Expert Review" and by updating the guidance
   to the Designated Experts.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   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
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 2020. June 11, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5

1.  Introduction

   Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] requested
   IANA to create a registry consistent called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
   State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries.
   The allocation policy applied by IANA for those
   policies registries is
   "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126].

   The "Specification Required" policy requires evaluation of any
   assignment request by a "Designated Expert" and guidelines for any
   such experts are given in section 5.1 of [RFC7752].  In addition,
   this policy requires that "the values and their meanings must be
   documented in a permanent and readily available public specification,
   in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent
   implementations is possible" [RFC8126].  Further, the intention
   behind "permanent and readily available" is that "a document can
   reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long after IANA
   assignment of the requested value" [RFC8126].

   It is often considered that it is the responsibility of the
   Designated Expert to make a determination as to whether a
   specification meets the requirement to be permanent and readily
   publicly available.  A degree of contention arises in this case
   because Internet-Drafts are now permanently archived in the IETF&s
   tools archive, yet each such document is marked with a piece of
   boilerplate text as follows that brings doubt about its suitability
   as a permanent record:

      Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
      months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
      documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
      as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
      progress."

   Another allocation policy called "Expert Review" is defined in
   [RFC8126].  This policy also requires Expert Review, but has no
   requirement for a formal document.

   All reviews by Designated Experts are guided by advice given in the
   document that defined the registry and set the allocation policy.

   This document updates RFC 7752 by changing the allocation policy for
   all of the registries to "Expert Review" and updating the guidance to
   the Designated Experts.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
   State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry".  This registry contains four
   sub-registries:

   o  BGP-LS NLRI-Types

   o  BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
      Attribute TLVs

   o  BGP-LS Protocol-IDs

   o  BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs

   IANA is requested to change the assignment policy for each of these
   registries to "Expert Review".

2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts

   Section 5.1 of [RFC7752] gives guidance to Designated Experts.  This
   section replaces that guidance.

   In all cases of review by the Designated Expert (DE) described here,
   the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the
   requested code points.  Additionally,  The following points apply to the DE must verify that any
   request registries
   discussed in this document:

   1.  Application for one of these code points has been a codepoint allocation MAY be made available to the
       Designated Experts at any time.

   2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
       documents or that are planned for
   review and comment progression as AD Sponsored
       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.

   3.  In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts
       SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is
       consensus within the IETF: Working Group to make the DE will post allocation at this
       time.  In the request case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated
       Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the
       allocation at this time.

   4.  If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Gorup mailing list Group (or a successor its
       successor), the Designated Expert SHOULD notify the IDR mailing
       list
   designated (or its successor) of the request and allow two weeks for
       any response.  Any comments received SHOULD be considered by the IESG).  If
       Designated Expert as part of the request comes from within subsequent step.

   5.  The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the IETF,
   it should be documented in an Internet-Draft.  Lastly, assignment requests
       on their technical merit.  The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek
       to overrule IETF consensus, but they MAY raise issues for further
       consideration before the DE must assignments are made.

   6.  The Designated Expert MUST attempt to ensure that any other request for
       a code point does not conflict with work that is active or
       already published within the IETF.

   7.  Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will
       update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a
       reference to the associated document.

   8.  In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the
       Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact the Designated Expert
       to coordinate with IANA over marking the code points as
       deprecated following similar principles to Section 3.3 of
       [RFC7120].

3.  Security Considerations

   The security consideration of [RFC7752] still apply.

   Note that the change to the expert review guidelines make makes the
   registry and the Designated Experts slightly more vulnerable to
   denial of service attacks through excessive and bogus requests for
   code points.  It is expected that the registry cannot be effectively
   attacked because the Designated Experts would, themselves, fall to
   any such attack first.  Designated Experts are expected to report to
   the IDR working group chairs and responsible Area Director if they
   believe an attack to be in progress, and should immediately halt all
   requests for allocation.  This may temporarily block all legitimate
   risks
   requests until mitigations have been put in place.

   This change in allocation policy should not have any effect on the
   integrity of BGP-LS since there is no change to the review
   requirements for the work that underlies the request.

4.  Acknowledgements

   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, and Ketan Talaulikar Talaulikar, and Alvaro
   Retana for review, comments, and discussion.

   Additional thanks to Gyan Mishra, Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Les
   Ginsberg, and Bruno Decraene for engaging in discussion on the
   details of this work.

5.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Author's Address

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting

   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk