--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.txt 2018-11-12 09:13:16.064765531 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01.txt 2018-11-12 09:13:16.076765816 -0800 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Network Working Group J. Scudder Internet-Draft Juniper Networks -Updates: 5492 (if approved) November 6, 2018 +Updates: 5492 (if approved) November 12, 2018 Intended status: Standards Track -Expires: May 10, 2019 +Expires: May 16, 2019 Revision to Capability Codes Registration Procedures - draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-00.txt + draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-01.txt Abstract This document updates RFC 5492 by making a change to the registration procedures for BGP Capability Codes. Specifically, the range formerly designated "Reserved for Private Use" is divided into three new ranges, respectively designated as "First Come First Served", "Experimental" and "Reserved". Status of This Memo @@ -24,21 +24,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on May 10, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 @@ -48,94 +48,103 @@ the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction [RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as "Reserved for Private Use". Subsequent experience has shown this to be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors. BGP Capability Codes do not meet the criteria for "Private Use" described - in [RFC8126] S. 4.1. An example of a legitimate "private use" code - point might be a BGP community [RFC1997] value assigned for use - within a given AS, but no analogous use of Capabilities exists. + in [RFC8126] section 4.1. An example of a legitimate "private use" + code point might be a BGP community [RFC1997] value assigned for use + within a given Autonomous System, but no analogous use of + Capabilities exists. Accordingly, this document revises the registration procedures for the range 128-255, as follows, using the terminology defined in [RFC8126]: - 128-238: First Come First Served - - 239-254: Experimental Use - - 255: Reserved + o 128-238: First Come First Served + o 239-254: Experimental Use + o 255: Reserved The procedures for the ranges 1-63 and 64-127 are unchanged, remaining "IETF Review" and "First Come First Served" respectively. 2. Discussion The reason for providing an Experimental Use range is to preserve a range for use during early development. Although there are few practical differences between Experimental and Private Use, the change both makes it clear that code points from this space should not be used long-term or in shipping products, and reduces the consumption of the scarce Capability Code space expended for this purpose. Once classified as Experimental, it should be considered difficult to reclassify the space for some other purpose in the future. The reason for reserving the maximum value is that it may be useful in the future if extension of the number space is needed. - We note that since the range 128-255 was formerly ungoverned, - implementors may have chosen to use code points within that range - prior to publication of this document. Although it is not possible - to know what code points implementors may have used, experience - suggests 128 is a likely value. For that reason, this document asks - IANA to reserve that value, to minimize the risk of conflict with - existing implementations. - Finally, we invite implementors who have used values in the range 128-255 to contribute to this draft, so that the values can be - included in the registry. + included in the registry. Values that have been reported, are + included. 3. IANA Considerations - IANA is requested to revise the "Capability Codes" registry as - described in Section 1. Since the range 128-238 is adjacent to the - existing First Come First Served range, after this change the entire - First Come First Served range will be 64-238. + IANA is requested to revise the registration procedures for the + "Capability Codes" registry to be: - IANA is requested to allocate value 128 as "Reserved". + +---------+-------------------------+ + | Range | Registration Procedures | + +---------+-------------------------+ + | 1-63 | IETF Review | + | 64-238 | First Come First Served | + | 239-254 | Experimental | + | 255 | Reserved | + +---------+-------------------------+ + + IANA is requested to perform the following new allocations within the + "Capability Codes" registry: + + +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ + | Value | Description | Reference | + +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ + | 128 | Prestandard Route Refresh (deprecated) | (this | + | | | document) | + | 130 | Prestandard Outbound Route Filtering | (this | + | | (deprecated) | document) | + +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 4. Security Considerations This revision to registration procedures does not change the underlying security issues inherent in the existing [RFC5492] and [RFC4271]. 5. Acknowledgements - Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Jeff Haas, Sue Hares and Thomas - Mangin for review and comments. + Thanks to Alia Atlas, Bruno Decraene, Martin Djernaes, Jeff Haas, Sue + Hares, and Thomas Mangin for review and comments. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 2009, . [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for