draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-02.txt   rfc7370.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Request for Comments: 7370 Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track August 14, 2014 Category: Standards Track September 2014
Expires: February 15, 2015 ISSN: 2070-1721
Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
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
Codepoints registry to more accurately document the state of the TLV 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
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 15, 2015. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370.
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 24 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 documents related to
are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions IS-IS are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol
are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA managed extensions are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the
registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the registries IANA-managed registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the
are updated to reference the relevant RFC. registries 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.
In some cases there is a need to allocate codepoints defined in In some cases, there is a need to allocate codepoints defined in
Internet-Drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that seem likely to eventually gain Working
without waiting for those drafts to be published as RFCs. This can Group approval, without waiting for those I-Ds to be published as
be achieved using Expert Review, and this document sets out guidance RFCs. This can be achieved using Expert Review, and this document
for the Designated Experts to apply when reviewing allocations from sets out guidance for the Designated Experts to apply when reviewing
the registry. allocations from the registry.
2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry 1.1. Requirements Language
There is an existing common sub-TLV registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
141, and 222. [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23) "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). Format of these TLVs is document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 2. IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry
Currently there exist separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, 235, There was an existing common sub-TLV registry named "Sub-TLVs for
236, 237). As in the case of the IS Neighbor TLVs discussed in the TLVs 22, 141, and 222". [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute
previous section, assignment of sub-TLVs applicable to one or more of TLV (23) and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). The format of
these TLVs is intended to be common. Therefore the existing separate these TLVs is identical to TLVs 22 and 222, respectively. The IS
sub-TLV registries need to be combined into a single registry Neighbor sub-TLV registry has been 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
Previously, there existed separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135,
235, 236, and 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 have been combined into a single registry
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. The format of the registry is
be as shown below: 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]
2 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 I-Ds 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, the procedures in [RFC7120] for
allocation do not apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV early allocation do not apply to registries, such as the "IS-IS TLV
Codepoints Registry which utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy. Codepoints" registry, that utilize the "Expert Review" allocation
In such cases what is required is that a request be made to the policy. In such cases, what is required is that a request be made to
Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to the the Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to
guidance that has been established for the registry concerned. the guidance that has been established for the registry concerned.
The following guidance applies specifically to the IS-IS TLV The following guidance applies specifically to the "IS-IS TLV
Codepoints registry. Codepoints" registry.
1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the 1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the
Designated Experts at any time. Designated Experts at any time.
2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise 2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
from Internet-Drafts that have already been accepted as Working from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
Group documents or that are planned for progression as AD documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.
Working Group.
3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts 3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts
SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is
consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this
time. In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated time. In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated
Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the
allocation at this time. allocation at this time.
4. The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests 4. The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests
on their technical merit. The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek on their technical merit. The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek
to overrule IETF consensus, but MAY raise issues for further to overrule IETF consensus, but they MAY raise issues for further
consideration before the assignments are made. 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 with a update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a
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 codepoints -- 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 This document provides guidance to the Designated Experts appointed
to manage allocation requests in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry. to manage allocation requests in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.
This document requires the addition of TLVs 23 and 223 to the IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for
existing Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141, and 222 registry as described in TLVs 22, 141, and 222" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141,
Section 2. 222, and 223".
This document requires the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, Per this document, the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135, 235,
235, 236, 237) be combined into a single registry as described in 236, and 237 have been combined into a single registry -- the
Section 3. "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237" registry -- as described
in 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. References
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 7.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
8.2. Informational References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF [RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
(JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", RFC (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", RFC
3563, July 2003. 3563, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563>.
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.
Author's Address Author's Address
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd. 510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035 Milpitas, CA 95035
USA United States
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com EMail: ginsberg@cisco.com
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
111 lines changed or deleted 112 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/