Networking Working Group                                     L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                           June 11,                         August 12, 2014
Expires: December February 13, 2014 2015

                Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry


   This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA IS-IS TLV
   Codepoints registry to more accurately document the state of the
   protocol.  It also defines early allocation procedures sets out new guidelines for codepoints
   managed by Designated Experts to
   apply when reviewing allocations from the registry.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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

   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 December February 13, 2014. 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Early Allocation of Codepoints  Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4   5
     8.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry was created by [RFC3563] and
   extended by [RFC6233].  The assignment policy for the registry is
   "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226].  As IS-IS related RFCs documents
   are published developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions
   are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA managed
   registry.  In  As these documents are published as RFCs, the case of TLVs supporting neighbor
   advertisement a common sub-TLV registry has been created.  This sub-
   TLV registry needs registries
   are updated to include additional neighbor advertisement TLVs
   defined in [RFC5311]. reference the relevant RFC.

   In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently
   separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV.  These
   registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar
   to what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs.


   In some cases there is a need to support early allocation of allocate codepoints defined in
   Internet-Drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval.  The
   procedure approval
   without waiting for obtaining early allocation of codepoints is described. 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

   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)
   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
   Registry needs to be extended to include these two TLVs.  Settings
   for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the settings for TLVs
   22 and 222 respectively.

3.  Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry

   Currently there exist separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, 235,
   236, 237).  As in the case of the IS Neighbor TLVs discussed in the
   previous section, assignment of sub-TLVs applicable to one or more of
   these TLVs is intended to be common.  Therefore the existing separate
   sub-TLV registries need to be combined into a single registry
   entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237".  As existing
   sub-TLV assignments are common to all the TLVs this represents no
   change to the protocol - only a clearer representation of the
   intended sub-TLV allocation strategy.  Format of the registry would
   be as shown below:

   Type  Description                       135 235 236 237  Reference
   ----  ------------                      --- --- --- ---  ---------
   0     Unassigned
   1     32-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

4.  Early Allocation of Codepoints  Guidance for Designated Experts

   When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is
   advantageous to have the ability be able to do early allocation of
   codepoints. allocate codepoints without waiting for
   them to progress to RFC.  The reasons this is advantageous and the process to do
   so is are
   described in [RFC7120].  However, [RFC7120] procedures for early
   allocation do not apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV
   Codepoints Registry which utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy.
   In such cases what is required is that a request be made to the designated experts.
   Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to the
   guidance that has been established for the registry concerned.

   The following procedures are defined.  Note these procedures apply guidance applies specifically to the IS-IS TLV
   Codepoints registry.  This document is
   not defining a general early allocation process for other Expert
   Review registries.

   1.  In order to qualify  Application for early allocation a draft MUST codepoint allocation MAY be accepted
       as a WG document made to the
       Designated Experts at any time.

   2.  The author(s) of Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
       from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as Working
       Group documents or that are planned for progression as AD
       Sponsored documents in the draft MAY request early allocation absence of
       codepoints to a suitably chartered
       Working Group.

   3.  In the chair(s) case of Working Group documents, the WG in which Designated Experts
       SHOULD check with the document is

   3.  The WG chair(s) gauge whether Working Group chairs that there is
       consensus within the WG
       that early Working Group to make the allocation is appropriate for at this
       time.  In the given document and
       that case of AD Sponsored documents, the conditions for early allocation specified in [RFC7120]
       Section 2 are satisfied.  If so Designated
       Experts SHOULD check with the request is forwarded AD for approval to make the
       Area Director(s).
       allocation at this time.

   4.  If the Area Director(s) approve, the request is forwarded to  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 their approval. further
       consideration before the assignments are made.

   5.  Once the Designated Experts have granted approval IANA will
       update the registry marking the allocated codepoints with a
       reference to the associated document as
       "Temporary" following normal.

   6.  In the procedures specified event that the document fails to progress to RFC the
       Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120]
       Section 3.1 MUST be
       followed for the relevant code points - noting that the
       Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group

5.  IANA Considerations

   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
   Section 2.

   This document requires the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135,
   235, 236, 237) be combined into a single registry as described in
   Section 3.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security issues.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their
   input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes
   implemented.  Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for crafting the text
   in Section 4.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5130]  Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control
              Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130,
              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,
              "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for
              IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009.

   [RFC6233]  Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for
              Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014.

8.2.  Informational References

   [RFC3563]  Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
              and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
              (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", RFC
              3563, July 2003.

Author's Address
   Les Ginsberg
   Cisco Systems
   510 McCarthy Blvd.
   Milpitas, CA  95035