Re: [Idr] Revised proposed IDR charter

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

Danny;

The text "...review extensions made to BGP in other working groups at least at WG document adoption and during working group last calls" implies that the call (in a different working group) for adoption of a document that has significant implications on BGP would be copied to the IDR working group. Also, WG last calls would also be copied to the IDR working group. This should make life easier when documents that have implications on BGP get to the IESG for review, and the routing ADs (or others) ask the obvious question: "What does the IDR working group think of this?". 

In terms of groups that are working on experimental specifications, your use of the word "theoretically" may be particularly appropriate. There is quite a range of intentions that over the years have been attached to documents whose status is listed as "experimental". If there is a proposal which has some likelihood of being deployed in the Internet and thereby having significant impact on how BGP operates in the Internet, then however it is labeled it is appropriate for the proposal to be looked at by IDR. 

"Oversight" and "review" doesn't imply a tyrannical ability to stop all work. It does mean that they get to comment. As is usual in the IETF, we can expect that most proposals will go forward with little or no controversy (you co-chair a WG which may be an exception), and that when controversy does show up the WG chairs, and if necessary the ADs, will need to get together and look for rough consensus. 

In your case as co-chair of L3VPN, this means that for those L3VPN protocol specifications that have significant implications on IDR, then in the future you should copy the requests for WG adoption and the WG last calls to the IDR list. Given the considerable overlap between L3VPN and IDR participants, this is not all that likely to change the results, but is nonetheless a sensible step. 

Your other more detailed comments at the end of your email strike me as good points to bring up during IDR discussion of specific proposals, but I don't see what we would add differently into the proposed charter. 

thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Danny McPherson
Sent: 01 February 2010 02:59
To: John Scudder
Cc: idr List; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Revised proposed IDR charter


On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:53 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:

> The IDR working group also has an oversight role for all extensions made
> to BGP for other uses that may be developed in other working groups. IDR 
> will review extensions made to BGP in other working groups at least at 
> WG document adoption and during working group last calls. The IDR working 
> group will also provide advice and guidance on BGP to other working groups
> as requested. In some cases the IDR WG chairs may work with the chairs of
> other working groups and the IESG to move BGP work into the IDR WG instead 
> of the another WG.

How is it the IDR WG intends to be involved in WG document 
adoption in other WGs (e.g., PWE3, L2VPN, L3VPN, etc..) from 
a process perspective?  I can understand how cross-WG LCs 
function, but not the adoption process.  

Also, does this include WGs that are theoretically working only 
in experimental mode?  For example, if LISP or some other
IRTF-RRG-work-gone-IETF-WG were to find it's way into modifying
(or otherwise employing) BGP, then IDR gets veto power on document 
adoption?  This seems a bit tyrannical to me.

> Work Items:
> 
> The IDR working group will work on correctness, robustness and
> scalability of the BGP protocol, as well as clarity and accuracy of the
> BGP document set.  The group will also work on extensions beyond these
> areas when specifically added to the charter.  The current additional
> work items are:
> 
> - Relax the definition of BGP identifiers to only require AS-wide
>  uniqueness. This change must be made in a backward compatible way.
> 
> - Specify a means to non-disruptively introduce new BGP Capabilities 
>  to an existing BGP session.
> 
> - Upgrade of the base BGP specification to Full Standard
> 
> - Define AS_PATH based Outbound Route Filtering.
> 
> - MIB v2 for BGP-4
> 
> - Augment the BGP multiprotocol extensions to support the use of
>  multiple concurrent sessions between a given pair of BGP speakers.
>  Each session is used to transport routes related by some session-
>  based attribute such as AFI/SAFI. This will provide an alternative
>  to the MP-BGP approach of multiplexing all routes onto a single
>  connection.
> 
> - Support for four-octet AS Numbers in BGP.
> 
> - Revisions to the BGP 'Minimum Route Advertisement Interval'
>  deprecating the previously recommended values and allowing for
>  withdrawals to be exempted from the MRAI.

> - Advertisement of multiple paths for the same address prefix without
>  the new paths implicitly replacing any previous ones. Each path is
>  identified by a path identifier in addition to the address prefix.
> 
> - Revised error handling rules for optional transitive BGP attributes
>  so that a BGP speaker is no longer required to reset the session
>  over which a malformed attribute is received. Provide guidelines
>  for authors of documents that define new optional transitive
>  attributes, and re-assess procedures for existing optional
>  transitive attributes
> 
> - Specify Link Bandwidth Extended Community for use in unequal cost
>  load balancing.
> 
> - The definition of an "Accumulated IGP Metric" attribute for BGP
>  to report the sum of the metric of each link along the path.
>  This attribute is for use in a restricted environment where:
>  - all ASes are subject to the administrative control
>  - some form of tunneling is used to deliver a packet to its next
>    BGP hop
>  - where the path for a route leads outside the AS to which the
>    BGP speaker adding the attribute belongs.

What's a restrictive environment again and how do we *guarantee* 
this in BGP?

> - Advertisement of the best external route in BGP to assist with
>  resolution of the next hop in the chosen data plane.

Any chance we could add something here about minimizing BGP state, 
everyone one of the options above aims to expand the number of 
unique routes, whereas RRG and all the rest of the world are working
on scalability - all of this stuff seems to only lead to additional 
state and churn to me.

-danny


> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> Done  Submit to BGP Capability Advertisement to the IESG
> Done  Submit BGP Security Vulnerabilities Analysis to IESG as an
>      Informational
> Done  Submit BGP4 MIB to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Done  Submit BGP4 document to IESG as a Draft Standard
> Done  Submit Extended Communities draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Done  Submit BGP Graceful Restart to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Done  Submit revised text on Multi-Protocol BGP (rfc2858bis) to IESG as a
>      Draft Standard
> Done  Submit Subcodes for BGP Cease Notification Message to IESG as a
>      Proposed Standard
> Done  Submit 4-byte AS ID to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Done  Submit Outbound Route Filter, Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG as
>      a Proposed Standard
> Done  Prefix and ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Aug 2010 Submit AS-wide Unique BGP Identifier for BGP-4 as a Proposed
>         Standard
> Aug 2010 Submit Dynamic Capability for BGP-4 to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Aug 2010 ASpath ORF draft to IESG as a Proposed Standard
> Aug 2010 Submit MIB v2 for BGP-4 as a Proposed Standard
> Nov 2010 BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space (revised version)
> Nov 2010 Revisions to the BGP 'Minimum Route Advertisement Interval'
> Nov 2010 Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP
> Nov 2010 BGP Link Bandwidth Extended Community
> Nov 2010 Advertisement of the best external route in BGP
> Dec 2010 Submit Multisession BGP as a Proposed Standard
> Dec 2010 Error Handling for Optional Transitive BGP Attributes
> Dec 2010 Revise WG charter
> Mar 2011 The Accumulated IGP Metric Attribute for BGP
> Mar 2011 Base BGP specification (RFC 4271) as Full Standard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr