Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP
draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-18

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set and RFC 9774, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Mostly curious: Why are we only using SHOULD [NOT] in Section 6.2?  Why allow discretion here?  Are there legitimate reasons one might deviate from this advice?

[Ballot comment]
It is always useful to remove unused or bad features (in this case preventing RPKI) from the foundation protocols. I am somehow concerned by the transition as it could cause some instabilities, but I am trusting the IDR WG on this aspect.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2025-02-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, keyur@arrcus.com, shares@ndzh.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
consider the following document: - 'Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET
in BGP'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2025-02-17. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  BCP 172 (i.e., RFC 6472) recommends not using AS_SET and
  AS_CONFED_SET AS_PATH segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol
  (BGP).  This document advances that recommendation to a standards
  requirement in BGP; it prohibits the use of the AS_SET and
  AS_CONFED_SET path segment types in the AS_PATH.  This is done to
  simplify the design and implementation of BGP and to make the
  semantics of the originator of a BGP route clearer.  This will also
  simplify the design, implementation, and deployment of various BGP
  security mechanisms.  This document updates RFC 4271 by deprecating
  the origination of BGP routes with AS_SET (Type 1 AS_PATH segment)
  and updates RFC 5065 by deprecating the origination of BGP routes
  with AS_CONFED_SET (Type 4 AS_PATH segment).  Finally, it obsoletes
  RFC 6472.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
(*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*)

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus and broad agreement. 

Discussion centered on three points:
1) wording of proscribe/deprecate/prohibit the use of AS_SETs and AS_CONFED_SETs. 
  (MUST versus Should).  See comments on:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YQ900KIUaJw9wt2kFrY1eno4PLY/

2) Error handling text:
  "Upon receipt of such messages, conformant BGP speakers MUST use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling behavior by default"

3) What it means to conform to draft.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the discussion continued until alignment occurred.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

yes, see
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set
## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The base BGP WGs (BESS and Grow WG) were advised in the WG LC ((BESS, Grow, SIDROPS).
These were queried on x-x-x after the shepherd's report was finished.

OPS-DIR Early review did not respond.
RTG-DIR Early reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein - ready to publish
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-16-rtgdir-early-vainshtein-2024-12-03/

SEC-DIR Early Reviewer: Derek Atkins - ready to publish
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-16-secdir-early-atkins-2024-12-21/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

BGP Yang model changes have been added to IDR's list of Yang model changes.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang model included.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal review.  BGP internal state machine changes check via tools.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Security area is key. We believe the following resolutions:
-  Threat modeling: BGPsec WG and NIS have discussed this.
-  Trusted and untrusted parties - BGP base security model fits.
-  We think (based on SEC-DIR review) that the technology terms are adequate.
-  We hope this will reduce secure threats caused by AS-Sets
-  TLS and IPsec - are being addressed via BGP over QuiC or by base BGP
-  Randomness - does not relate to this issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document modifies 2 standards and obsoletes a 3rd.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly available messages when applicable.

Sriram, Kotikalapudi:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/07HItGe9xhiXFgfclIw2gMqbhMw/

Jeff Haas:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PX5jexLibpVsVrKHPel83X2m2Ko/

Lilia Hannachi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vUyOa-FJuxjlVlVQt-k6qG9nBoU/

Warren Kumari
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Current document seems to hit soem of tool's warnings.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All Normative references are RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes - RFC
Obsoletes: 6472 (if approved)     
Updates: 4271 5065 (if approved) 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions specified in this document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA actions or registries specified in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
(*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*)

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus and broad agreement. 

Discussion centered on three points:
1) wording of proscribe/deprecate/prohibit the use of AS_SETs and AS_CONFED_SETs. 
  (MUST versus Should).  See comments on:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YQ900KIUaJw9wt2kFrY1eno4PLY/

2) Error handling text:
  "Upon receipt of such messages, conformant BGP speakers MUST use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling behavior by default"

3) What it means to conform to draft.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the discussion continued until alignment occurred.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

yes, see
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set
## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The base BGP WGs (BESS and Grow WG) were advised in the WG LC ((BESS, Grow, SIDROPS).
These were queried on x-x-x after the shepherd's report was finished.

OPS-DIR Early review did not respond.
RTG-DIR Early reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein - ready to publish
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-16-rtgdir-early-vainshtein-2024-12-03/

SEC-DIR Early Reviewer: Derek Atkins - ready to publish
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-16-secdir-early-atkins-2024-12-21/

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

BGP Yang model changes have been added to IDR's list of Yang model changes.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang model included.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal review.  BGP internal state machine changes check via tools.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Security area is key. We believe the following resolutions:
-  Threat modeling: BGPsec WG and NIS have discussed this.
-  Trusted and untrusted parties - BGP base security model fits.
-  We think (based on SEC-DIR review) that the technology terms are adequate.
-  We hope this will reduce secure threats caused by AS-Sets
-  TLS and IPsec - are being addressed via BGP over QuiC or by base BGP
-  Randomness - does not relate to this issue.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document modifies 2 standards and obsoletes a 3rd.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly available messages when applicable.

Sriram, Kotikalapudi:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/07HItGe9xhiXFgfclIw2gMqbhMw/

Jeff Haas:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PX5jexLibpVsVrKHPel83X2m2Ko/

Lilia Hannachi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vUyOa-FJuxjlVlVQt-k6qG9nBoU/

Warren Kumari
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Current document seems to hit soem of tool's warnings.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All Normative references are RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes - RFC
Obsoletes: 6472 (if approved)     
Updates: 4271 5065 (if approved) 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions specified in this document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA actions or registries specified in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
(*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*)

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus and broad agreement. 

Discussion centered on three points:
1) wording of proscribe/deprecate/prohibit the use of AS_SETs and AS_CONFED_SETs. 
  (MUST versus Should).  See comments on:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YQ900KIUaJw9wt2kFrY1eno4PLY/

2) Error handling text:
  "Upon receipt of such messages, conformant BGP speakers MUST use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling behavior by default"

3) What it means to conform to draft.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the discussion continued until alignment occurred.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

yes, see
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set
## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The base BGP WGs (BESS and Grow WG) were advised in the WG LC ((BESS, Grow, SIDROPS).
These were queried on x-x-x after the shepherd's report was finished.

OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, and SEC-DIR early review was requested.
(Add here after reports come back on 11/25/2024)

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

BGP Yang model changes have been added to IDR's list of Yang model changes.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang model included.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal review.  BGP internal state machine changes check via tools.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

AFAIK.  Awaiting reviews from OPS-DIR, SEC-DIR, and RTG_DIR.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.  This document modifies 2 standards and obsoletes a 3rd.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Sriram, Kotikalapudi:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/07HItGe9xhiXFgfclIw2gMqbhMw/

Jeff Haas:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PX5jexLibpVsVrKHPel83X2m2Ko/

Lilia Hannachi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vUyOa-FJuxjlVlVQt-k6qG9nBoU/

Warren Kumari
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Current document seems to hit soem of tool's warnings.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All Normative references are RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Yes - RFC
Obsoletes: 6472 (if approved)     
Updates: 4271 5065 (if approved) 

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA actions specified in this document.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA actions or registries specified in this document.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents
(*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*)

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Strong consensus and broad agreement. 

Discussion centered on three points:
1) wording of proscribe/deprecate/prohibit the use of AS_SETs and AS_CONFED_SETs. 
  (MUST versus Should).  See comments on:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/YQ900KIUaJw9wt2kFrY1eno4PLY/

2) Error handling text:
  "Upon receipt of such messages, conformant BGP speakers MUST use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling behavior by default"

3) What it means to conform to draft.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No, the discussion continued until alignment occurred.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

yes, see
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set
## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The base BGP WGs (BESS and Grow WG) were advised in the WG LC.
(BESS WG, grow WG). These were queried on x-x-x after the shepherd's report was finished.

OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, and SEC-DIR early review was requested.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

BGP Yang model changes have been added to IDR's list of Yang model changes.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

No yang model included.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal review.  BGP internal state machine changes check via tools.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?



11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Sriram, Kotikalapudi:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/07HItGe9xhiXFgfclIw2gMqbhMw/

Jeff Haas:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PX5jexLibpVsVrKHPel83X2m2Ko/

Lilia Hannachi
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vUyOa-FJuxjlVlVQt-k6qG9nBoU/

Warren Kumari
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vBHAy1vvpEIi7kRFATXz8zWZzqY/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/