Subject: [babel] Charter Proposal

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 05:25:07 -0400

After some discussion, the following is an initial cut at a charter 
proposal, for discussion on the list now, and as part of the Babel BoF 
in Buenos Aires.

Yours,
Joel

Name: BABEL
Chairs: TBD
Area: Routing

Babel is a loop-avoiding distance vector protocol that has good
provisions for dynamically computed metrics and remains robust even in
the presence of metric oscillations and failure of transitivity. Babel
has seen some production deployment, notably in hybrid networks
(networks that combine classical, wired parts with meshy bits) and in
global overlay networks (networks built out of large numbers of
tunnels spanning continents). There exist three independent
implementations of Babel, all of which are open source.

The core of the Babel protocol is described in detail in RFCs 6126 and
7557, with RFC 7298 describing the security extensions, all of which
are Experimental Independent Stream RFCs. While
these RFCs have been useful (as indicated by the independent
reimplementations of Babel), a number of parties have expressed a
desire to have a new specification, which would clarify RFC 6126
according to the feedback provided by the independent
reimplementations and integrate the contents of RFC 7557.

The working group is will focus on what is needed to move
the Babel protocol to IETF Proposed Standard with IETF review.  Other
documents which are relevant to such consideration can also be
produced. Particular emphasis will be placed on work needed to meet
the needs for Proposed Standards, such as ensuring manageability and
strong security.

Work Items:

  - Produce a revision of RFC 6126 suitable for publication as a
  Proposed Standard, and work with the IESG for approval of same
    -- incorporate in the revision developments since RFC 6126
    -- resolve technical issues found by recent reviews and the working
       group discussions
    -- include in the base specification the extensibility work in
       rfc 7557
    -- consider any important changes based on experience with Babel to
  date.  This may include discussion of issues such as the size of the
  default metric.

  - Address security needs for BABEL.  This may include using the
    techniques in RF 7298, or other alternatives.  This may be by
    inclusion in the base spec or by normative reference to a
    separate proposed standard specification.  This is required as part
    of moving Babel to Proposed Standard.

  - Produce an applicability statement for publication as an
    informational RFC.  This is highly desirable in conjunction with
    moving Babel to Proposed Standard.

  - Address manageability of Babel, most likely by producing a YANG
    model for Babel consistent with other YANG models produced in the
    routing area.  This is required as part of moving Babel to Proposed
    Standard.

  - The working group may choose to publish an informational RFC on
    implementation experience with Babel, so as to enable future
    readers to better understand the state that drives this work and
    the experience driving changes.

  - The working group may choose to work on multicast aspects
    of Babel once the initial focus on Proposed Standard is met.

  - Coordinate with other working groups as need.

Thus, the working group will produce a proposed standard Babel
specification, either including or paired with a suitable security
specification for BABEL.  It will also produce a management model for
BABEL as a proposed standard RFC.  An applicability statement, and
possibly an experience document will be produced as informational
RFC(s).

---

From: Matthieu Boutier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:50:21 +0100

Some minor typos:

> The working group is will focus on […]

(is will)

>      rfc 7557

RFC (to upper case)

>   techniques in RF 7298, or other alternatives.  This may be by

RFC

Matthieu

---

From: Gabriel Kerneis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:18:39 +0100

>    routing area.  This is required as part of moving Babel to Proposed

Is this a requirement specific to the routing area? Could you provide a
couple pointers please? For instance, looking only at the list at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YANG#Usage_in_Standards, I cannot find
concrete examples of other routing protocols using this. (I am sure there
are, just not easy to find hundreds of pages of RFCs.)

Thanks,
Gabriel

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:27:55 -0400

Hi Gabriel,

There is always a requirement for manageability and associated
considerations.  Traditionally, this has involved MIBs.
In the last couple years, as part of the movement towards orchestration and
model-driven software, YANG has taken off
as a common modeling language that is used in combination with NetConf or
RestConf for configuration and reading of
operational state.  Even in ecosystems where NetConf or RestConf aren't the
preferred protocols to use, it is possible to
translate YANG into a suitable encoding (though that isn't currently being
standardized).

There are currently YANG modules in progress for OSPF, ISIS, BGP,  the RIB,
MPLS, topology, security key-chains, VRRP, and many many others.  Those are
in various working groups in the Routing Area.   You can find some by
looking at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=yang&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on
.  We also have a wiki (alas a bit outdated) at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgYangCoord  and a mailing
list [email-masked].

Do you have thoughts on what type of manageability would be needed for
likely deployment scenarios for babel?

Regards,
Alia