forked from ietf/wiki.ietf.org
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
ops.html
90 lines (89 loc) · 14.8 KB
/
ops.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
<!--
title: Operations Area Info
description: Operations Area Wiki
published: true
date: 2022-09-13T15:20:13.352Z
tags:
editor: ckeditor
dateCreated: 2022-09-13T15:00:25.157Z
-->
<h2><strong>Hot Topics / Tips</strong></h2>
<p>The below are some things to consider and keep in mind while writing Internet Drafts, both in the Operations and Management area, but also in the IETF in general.</p>
<p>There are many ways to shoot yourself in the foot when writing an Internet Draft - here are some of the ways that the current AD has seen this happen and / or things which it is worth keeping in mind.</p>
<p>Note that these are just the personal views and advice from the current OpsAD - it is far from complete, feel free to send me additional pointers / ways which you've seen people trip over operational bits.</p>
<p><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706">RFC 5706</a> Appendix A. - "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions" (<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706</a>) contains a checklist which is also very helpful.</p>
<h3><strong>DNS</strong></h3>
<p>DNS is core plumbing, and as such it is one of the obvious tools in the protocol designer's toolbox. There are, however, a number of dangers here.</p>
<p>These include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Trying to use a name in the "rightmost" (TLD) part of the name - this is almost definitely doing to end poorly for you. For a small subset of issues with this see:<ul>
<li><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8244">RFC 8244</a> - Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement</li>
<li><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761">RFC6761</a> - Special-Use Domain Names</li>
<li>IAB statement on the registration of special use names in the ARPA domain</li>
<li>Guidelines for Use of the Special Use Names Registry ("work in progress.")</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Assuming that the "reverse DNS" tree (in-addr.arpa) is complete and / or up to date and / or reflects reality. Periodically it is assumed that publishing security or similar information at e.g 1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa.is safe because only the "owner" of 192.0.2.1 controls this. This is sadly incorrect.</li>
<li>Mistakenly thinking that DNS is a UDP only protocol (and / or that TCP is only used for zone transfers). Additional reading: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7766">RFC7766</a> - DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements</li>
<li>Using DNS TXT records. While the DNS can store TXT records (<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1464">RFC1464</a>), it is almost definitely a mistake to develop a protocol which uses these. A new DNS RRType is much preferred - it makes it easier to parse, and is less likely to break things. See <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6895">RFC6895</a> - Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations, Section 3.1 for more detail.</li>
<li>Incorrect usage of the _underscore naming pattern - see <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8552">RFC8552</a> - Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves for advice on how to use these.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>IPv6</strong></h3>
<ul>
<li>Due to various hardware limitations, packets with "excessive" IPv6 Extension Headers may be dropped. Various operators also filter packets with extension headers and or fragments - see the (expired) draft "Why Operators Filter Fragments and What It Implies"(<a href="https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop-02.txt">https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop-02.txt</a>) for more background.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Routing</strong></h3>
<ul>
<li>Assuming that "customers" connect to Tier-2 ISPs who then connect to Tier-1 ISPs. The routing system is much more messy than this, and "customers" and various size ISPs all peer / purchase transit / etc.</li>
<li>Assuming that sending a packet which needs "high-touch" (the control plane) of a router is a reasonable thing to do. In order to scale, modern routers do almost all work in dedicated network hardware. Anything which requires punting transit traffic to the control plane almost definitely means that the traffic will be dropped / that the protocol will not be deployable.</li>
<li>Assuming that Quality of Service markings will cross administrative boundaries.</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Shepherd Writeup Template</h3>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.</span><br><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">The approval announcement contains the following sections:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Technical Summary:</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Working Group Summary:</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Document Quality:</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Personnel:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> Who is the Document Shepherd?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> Who is the Responsible Area Director?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If so, describe the review that took place.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If not, explain why?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools)for syntax and formatting validation? </span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time?</span><br><span style="font-family:'Courier New', Courier, monospace;">Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?</span></p>