draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.txt   draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-01.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track June 11, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track August 12, 2014
Expires: December 13, 2014 Expires: February 13, 2015
Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.txt draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA IS-IS TLV This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA IS-IS TLV
Codepoints registry to more accurately document the state of the Codepoints registry to more accurately document the state of the
protocol. It also defines early allocation procedures for codepoints protocol. It also sets out new guidelines for Designated Experts to
managed by the registry. apply when reviewing allocations from the registry.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 13, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Early Allocation of Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry was created by [RFC3563] and The IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry was created by [RFC3563] and
extended by [RFC6233]. As IS-IS related RFCs are published the extended by [RFC6233]. The assignment policy for the registry is
codepoints required for the protocol extensions are added to the IANA "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226]. As IS-IS related documents
managed registry. In the case of TLVs supporting neighbor are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions
advertisement a common sub-TLV registry has been created. This sub- are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA managed
TLV registry needs to include additional neighbor advertisement TLVs registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the registries
defined in [RFC5311]. are updated to reference the relevant RFC.
In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently
separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV. These separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV. These
registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar
to what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs. to what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs.
There is a need to support early allocation of codepoints defined in In some cases there is a need to allocate codepoints defined in
drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval. The Internet-Drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval
procedure for obtaining early allocation of codepoints is described. without waiting for those drafts to be published as RFCs. This can
be achieved using Expert Review, and this document sets out guidance
for the Designated Experts to apply when reviewing allocations from
the registry.
2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry 2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry
There is an existing common sub-TLV registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, There is an existing common sub-TLV registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 22,
141, and 222. [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23) 141, and 222. [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23)
and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). Format of these TLVs is and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). Format of these TLVs is
identical to TLVs 22 and 222 respectively. The IS Neighbor sub-TLV identical to TLVs 22 and 222 respectively. The IS Neighbor sub-TLV
Registry needs to be extended to include these two TLVs. Settings Registry needs to be extended to include these two TLVs. Settings
for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the settings for TLVs for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the settings for TLVs
22 and 222 respectively. 22 and 222 respectively.
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
intended sub-TLV allocation strategy. Format of the registry would intended sub-TLV allocation strategy. Format of the registry would
be as shown below: be as shown below:
Type Description 135 235 236 237 Reference Type Description 135 235 236 237 Reference
---- ------------ --- --- --- --- --------- ---- ------------ --- --- --- --- ---------
0 Unassigned 0 Unassigned
1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130] 1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130]
1 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130] 1 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130]
3-255 Unassigned 3-255 Unassigned
4. Early Allocation of Codepoints 4. Guidance for Designated Experts
When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is
advantageous to have the ability to do early allocation of advantageous to be able to allocate codepoints without waiting for
codepoints. The reasons this is advantageous and the process to do them to progress to RFC. The reasons this is advantageous are
so is described in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures do not described in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures for early
apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry which allocation do not apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV
utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy. In such cases what is Codepoints Registry which utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy.
required is that a request be made to the designated experts. The In such cases what is required is that a request be made to the
following procedures are defined. Note these procedures apply Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to the
specifically to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry. This document is guidance that has been established for the registry concerned.
not defining a general early allocation process for other Expert
Review registries.
1. In order to qualify for early allocation a draft MUST be accepted The following guidance applies specifically to the IS-IS TLV
as a WG document Codepoints registry.
2. The author(s) of the draft MAY request early allocation of 1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the
codepoints to the chair(s) of the WG in which the document is Designated Experts at any time.
submitted
3. The WG chair(s) gauge whether there is consensus within the WG 2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
that early allocation is appropriate for the given document and from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as Working
that the conditions for early allocation specified in [RFC7120] Group documents or that are planned for progression as AD
Section 2 are satisfied. If so the request is forwarded to the Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered
Area Director(s). Working Group.
4. If the Area Director(s) approve, the request is forwarded to the 3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts
Designated Experts for their approval. SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is
consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this
time. In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated
Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the
allocation at this time.
4. The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests
on their technical merit. The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek
to overrule IETF consensus, but MAY raise issues for further
consideration before the assignments are made.
5. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval IANA will 5. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval IANA will
update the registry marking the allocated codepoints as update the registry marking the allocated codepoints with a
"Temporary" following the procedures specified in [RFC7120] reference to the associated document as normal.
Section 3.1
6. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC the
Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be
followed for the relevant code points - noting that the
Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group
chairs.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requires the addition of TLVs 23 and 223 to the This document requires the addition of TLVs 23 and 223 to the
existing Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141, and 222 registry as described in existing Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141, and 222 registry as described in
Section 2. Section 2.
This document requires the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, This document requires the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135,
235, 236, 237) be combined into a single registry as described in 235, 236, 237) be combined into a single registry as described in
Section 3. Section 3.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security issues. This document introduces no new security issues.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their
input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes
implemented. implemented. Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for crafting the text
in Section 4.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control [RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control
Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130, Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130,
February 2008. February 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, [RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand,
"Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for
IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009. IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009.
[RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for [RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for
Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011. Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014.
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 66 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/