1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Farrel
Request for Comments: 9029 Old Dog Consulting
Updates: 7752 June 2021
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Updates to the Allocation Policy for the Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registries
Abstract
RFC 7752 defines the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS).
IANA created a registry consistent with that document called "Border
Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters" with a number of
subregistries. The allocation policy applied by IANA for those
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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
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 (c) 2021 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
1.1. Requirements Language
2. IANA Considerations
2.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
3. Security Considerations
4. Normative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction
"North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE)
Information Using BGP" [RFC7752] requested IANA to create a registry
called "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters"
with a number of subregistries. The allocation policy applied by
IANA for those 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].
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 [RFC7752] 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 "Border Gateway Protocol - Link
State (BGP-LS) Parameters". This registry contains four
subregistries:
* BGP-LS NLRI-Types
* BGP-LS Protocol-IDs
* BGP-LS Well-Known Instance-IDs
* BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and
Attribute TLVs
IANA has changed the assignment policy for each of these registries
to "Expert Review".
IANA has also added this document as a reference for the registries
mentioned above.
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 described here, the
designated expert is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use
of the requested code points. The following points apply to the
registries discussed in this document:
1. 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.
Such documentation SHOULD be presented in the form of an
Internet-Draft but MAY arrive in any form that can be reviewed
and exchanged amongst reviewers.
2. The designated experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as working
group documents or that are planned for 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
MUST check with the working group chairs that there is consensus
within the working group to make the allocation at this time. In
the case of AD-Sponsored documents, the designated experts MUST
check with the AD for approval to make the allocation at this
time.
4. If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its
successor), the designated expert MUST notify the IDR mailing
list (or its successor) of the request and MUST provide access to
the document. The designated expert MUST allow two weeks for any
response. Any comments received MUST be considered by the
designated expert as part of the subsequent step.
5. The designated experts MUST then review the assignment requests
on their technical merit. The designated experts MAY raise
issues related to the allocation request with the authors and on
the IDR (or successor) mailing list for further consideration
before the assignments are made.
6. The designated expert MUST ensure that any 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 code points with a
reference to the associated document.
8. In the event that the document is a working group document or is
AD Sponsored, and that document fails to progress to publication
as an RFC, the working group chairs or AD SHOULD contact IANA to
coordinate about marking the code points as deprecated. A
deprecated code point is not marked as allocated 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
deallocated (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
The security considerations described in Section 8 of [RFC7752] still
apply.
Note that the change to the Expert Review guidelines 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
requests until mitigations have been put in place.
4. 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>.
[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>.
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
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
|
