Subject: [Idr] Revised proposed IDR charter

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:53:44 +0200

Folks,

As you know we're in the process of updating our charter.  Here's a revision to the version we discussed in Hiroshima, incorporating comments received from WG members and feedback from the IESG and Routing ADs.  The main changes are a statement that IDR has oversight responsibility for all BGP work done in the IETF, and an elaborated scope of work section.

If you have comments, please send them within the next week.  

Thanks,

--John & Sue

Inter-Domain Routing (idr)
Last Modified: 2010-01-26

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/idr

Chair(s):
 - Susan Hares <[email-masked]>
 - John Scudder <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Director(s):
 - Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
 - Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Advisor:
 - Ross Callon <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
 General Discussion: [email-masked]
 To Subscribe: [email-masked]
 In Body: subscribe idr-post
 Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The Inter-Domain Routing Working Group is chartered to standardize,
develop, and support the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 (BGP-4)
[RFC 4271] capable of supporting policy based routing for TCP/IP
internets.

The main objective of the working group is to support the use of
BGP-4 by IP version 4 and IP version 6 networks. The working group
will also continue to work on improving the robustness and
scalability of BGP.

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.

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.

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

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

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 00:58:39 -0700

> other working groups and the IESG to move BGP work into the IDR WG instead 

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.

>    BGP speaker adding the attribute belongs.

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

>  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

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr