Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints
draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track August 14, 2014
Expires: February 15, 2015
Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-02.txt
Abstract
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 sets out new guidelines for Designated Experts to
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
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 February 15, 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Ginsberg Expires February 15, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints August 2014
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. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 documents
are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions
are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA managed
registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the registries
are updated to 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.
Ginsberg Expires February 15, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints August 2014
In some cases there is a need to allocate codepoints defined in
Internet-Drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval
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
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]
2 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130]
3-255 Unassigned
4. Guidance for Designated Experts
When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is
advantageous to be able to allocate codepoints without waiting for
them to progress to RFC. The reasons this is advantageous 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
Ginsberg Expires February 15, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints August 2014
Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to the
guidance that has been established for the registry concerned.
The following guidance applies specifically to the IS-IS TLV
Codepoints registry.
1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the
Designated Experts at any time.
2. The 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 absence of a suitably chartered
Working Group.
3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts
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
update the registry marking the allocated codepoints with a
reference to the associated document as normal.
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
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
existing Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141, and 222 registry as described in
Section 2.
Ginsberg Expires February 15, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints August 2014
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.
Ginsberg Expires February 15, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints August 2014
Author's Address
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Ginsberg Expires February 15, 2015 [Page 6]
