draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03.txt 
IDR Group A. Farrel IDR Group A. Farrel
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Updates: 7752 (if approved) December 8, 2020 Updates: 7752 (if approved) December 9, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: June 11, 2021 Expires: June 12, 2021
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-02 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03
Abstract Abstract
RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS). IANA RFC 7752 defines Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS). IANA
created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border created a registry consistent with that document called the "Border
Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a
number of sub-registries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for number of sub-registries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for
those registries is "Specification Required" as defined in RFC 8126. those 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] requested Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] requested
IANA to create a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link IANA to create a registry called the "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries. State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry" with a number of sub-registries.
The allocation policy applied by IANA for those registries is The allocation policy applied by IANA for those registries is
"Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126]. "Specification Required" as defined in [RFC8126].
skipping to change at page 4, line 29 skipping to change at page 4, line 29
a code point does not conflict with work that is active or a code point does not conflict with work that is active or
already published within the IETF. already published within the IETF.
7. 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 codepoints with a update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a
reference to the associated document. reference to the associated document.
8. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the 8. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the
Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact the Designated Expert Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact the Designated Expert
to coordinate with IANA over marking the code points as to coordinate with IANA over marking the code points as
deprecated following similar principles to Section 3.3 of deprecated. A deprecated code point is not marked as allocated
[RFC7120]. for use and is not available for allocation in a future document.
The WG chairs may inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be
completely de-allocated (i.e., made available for new
allocations) at any time after it has been deprecated if there is
a shortage of unallocated code points in the registry.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
The security consideration of [RFC7752] still apply. The security consideration 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 22 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
Ginsberg, and Bruno Decraene for engaging in discussion on the Ginsberg, and Bruno Decraene for engaging in discussion on the
details of this work. details of this work.
5. Normative References 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>.
[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 [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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[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>.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 11 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/