draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-01.txt   draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-02.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track August 12, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track August 14, 2014
Expires: February 13, 2015 Expires: February 15, 2015
Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-01.txt draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-02.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 sets out new guidelines for Designated Experts to protocol. It also sets out new guidelines for Designated Experts to
apply when reviewing allocations from the registry. apply when reviewing allocations from the registry.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
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 February 13, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 15, 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 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
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. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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]. The assignment policy for the registry is extended by [RFC6233]. The assignment policy for the registry is
"Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226]. As IS-IS related documents "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226]. As IS-IS related documents
are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions
are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA managed are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA managed
registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the registries registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the registries
are updated to reference the relevant RFC. are updated to reference the relevant RFC.
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237". As existing entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237". As existing
sub-TLV assignments are common to all the TLVs this represents no sub-TLV assignments are common to all the TLVs this represents no
change to the protocol - only a clearer representation of the change to the protocol - only a clearer representation of the
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] 2 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130]
3-255 Unassigned 3-255 Unassigned
4. Guidance for Designated Experts 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 be able to allocate codepoints without waiting for advantageous to be able to allocate codepoints without waiting for
them to progress to RFC. The reasons this is advantageous are them to progress to RFC. The reasons this is advantageous are
described in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures for early described in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures for early
allocation do not apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV allocation do not apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV
Codepoints Registry which utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy. Codepoints Registry which utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy.
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
reference to the associated document as normal. reference to the associated document as normal.
6. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC the 6. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC the
Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be
followed for the relevant code points - noting that the followed for the relevant code points - noting that the
Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group
chairs. chairs.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document provides guidance to the Designated Experts appointed
to manage allocation requests in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry.
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
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 9 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/