** Minutes of the isis-wg meeting at IETF-77

Thanks to Abhay Roy and John Scudder for taking the minutes.

**
** 11m - RFC5120bis - Local Configuration of MTIDs
**     Les Ginsberg
**

PRESENTATION:

   Proposed to change MTID codepoints to reserve 6-255 for IETF
   consensus, and assign rest of space (up to 4095) for local
   configuration.

   Recommend the same for OSPF.

Gregory: If we have space which we can use for Local Config, why
do you need anything for IETF consensus?

Les: Being conservative. Consider it rare for IETF consensus need.
We do have space so, OK to allocate some number for that.

Gregory: Good thing about consensus is to insure interoperability.
Don't you think there is still a need for that?

Les: Interop is keyed on he fact that the reach info is used in the
same way by all the routers in the area.  Using the same ordinal
doesn't guarantee that, it's the smallest part of the problem.

Acee: Why are you doing this? Expecting some problems?

Les: It was the next presentation up.  We looked at it and realized
that we really don't want to be in the business of approving code
points.

Chris: Any objection for WG item?

Room: no objections

Chris: Take to list for consensus


**
** 13m - MT/MI IS-IS for IPv4-Embedded IPv6
**      http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-isis-v4v6-mt-02.txt
**      Dean Cheng
**

Dean: One question, what about MI-ISIS instance ID allocation?

Les: No reserved space in the MI draft.

Chris: Modification will go forward (as in Les's draft). So we
should be able to satisfy these needs with 5120bis document.

**
** 13m - Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS
**     http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wei-isis-tlv-03.txt
**     Zhenqiang Li
**

Chris: Some mailing list discussions happened. Rough consensus on
the list. Any objections from the room?

Room: No objections

**
** 11m - [ Previously presented ]
**     Recommendations for LSP Checksum Calculation and Related
**     Processing in multi-vendor Networks using Intermediate System
**     to Intermediate System
**     http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-isis-error-lsp-processing-03.txt
**     Zhenqiang Li
**

Chris: Discussion from the mailing lists appears to be - Why don't
we fix the implementation v/s do a knob?

Wenhu: Zero remaining lifetime and zero checksum will be dropped.
And cause backward compatibility issues? Every vendor must upgrade
at the same time for it to work?

Chris: It's more of a clarification of the standards behavior. Some
vendor's don't do the right thing.

Les: This draft just says "please follow the existing spec".  I
don't see how a second doc makes it more likely that an implementation
will follow the existing spec.  In fact it might hurt since it
potentially creates confusion.

Les: Also, a knob to produce non-standard behavior isn't subject
to standardization.

Les: 3719 does cover the 2 points mentioned here. If vendors want
to implement a knob, that shouldn't come to standards body

Adrian: (not speaking as an AD) if the original doc isn't clear,
it's OK to write a new document to clarify

Alex: But that was what RFC 3719 was for. It's already done! The
solution to this problem is open a bug with your vendor and stop
buying from the vendor until they fix it.

Zhengiang Li: Mentioned that the draft also recommends generating
correct chesksum for all kinds of LSPs including zero remaining
lifetime LSP and is helpful to increase the IS's compatibility.

More support in the room to work with the vendor to get this solved.

Chris: Rather than adding a knob, vendors should just fix it.

Room: no support for the document to become WG document