idnits 2.17.1 draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 22, 2014) is 3628 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track May 22, 2014 5 Expires: November 23, 2014 7 Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry 8 draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.txt 10 Abstract 12 This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA IS-IS TLV 13 Codepoints registry to more accurately document the state of the 14 protocol. It also defines early allocation procedures for codepoints 15 managed by the registry. 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2014. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 56 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 57 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 58 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 59 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 60 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 61 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 62 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 63 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 64 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 65 than English. 67 Table of Contents 69 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 4. Early Allocation of Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 1. Introduction 83 The IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry was created by [RFC3563] and 84 extended by [RFC6233]. As IS-IS related RFCs are published the 85 codepoints required for the protocol extensions are added to the IANA 86 managed registry. In the case of TLVs supporting neighbor 87 advertisement a common sub-TLV registry has been created. This sub- 88 TLV registry needs to include additional neighbor advertisement TLVs 89 defined in [RFC5311]. 91 In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently 92 separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV. These 93 registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar 94 to what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs. 96 There is a need to support early allocation of codepoints defined in 97 drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval. The 98 procedure for obtaining early allocation of codepoints is described. 100 2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry 102 There is an existing common sub-TLV registry for Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 103 141, and 222. [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23) 104 and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). Format of these TLVs is 105 identical to TLVs 22 and 222 respectively. The IS Neighbor sub-TLV 106 Registry needs to be extended to include these two TLVs. Settings 107 for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the settings for TLVs 108 22 and 222 respectively. 110 3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry 112 Currently there exist separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, 235, 113 236, 237). As in the case of the IS Neighbor TLVs discussed in the 114 previous section, assignment of sub-TLVs applicable to one or more of 115 these TLVs is intended to be common. Therefore the existing separate 116 sub-TLV registries need to be combined into a single registry 117 entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237". As existing 118 sub-TLV assignments are common to all the TLVs this represents no 119 change to the protocol - only a clearer representation of the 120 intended sub-TLV allocation strategy. Format of the registry would 121 be as shown below: 123 Type Description 135 235 236 237 Reference 124 ---- ------------ --- --- --- --- --------- 125 0 Unassigned 126 1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130] 127 1 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV Y Y Y Y [RFC5130] 128 3-255 Unassigned 130 4. Early Allocation of Codepoints 132 When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is 133 advantageous to have the ability to do early allocation of 134 codepoints. The reasons this is advantageous and the process to do 135 so is described in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures do not 136 apply to registries such as the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry which 137 utilize "Expert Review" allocation policy. In such cases what is 138 required is that a request be made to the designated experts. The 139 following procedures are defined. Note these procedures apply 140 specifically to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry. This document is 141 not defining a general early allocation process for other Expert 142 Review registries. 144 1. In order to qualify for early allocation a draft MUST be accepted 145 as a WG document 147 2. The author(s) of the draft MAY request early allocation of 148 codepoints to the chair(s) of the WG in which the document is 149 submitted 151 3. The WG chair(s) gauge whether there is consensus within the WG 152 that early allocation is appropriate for the given document and 153 that the conditions for early allocation specified in [RFC7120] 154 Section 2 are satisfied. If so the request is forwarded to the 155 Area Director(s). 157 4. If the Area Director(s) approve, the request is forwarded to the 158 Designated Experts for their approval. 160 5. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval IANA will 161 update the registry marking the allocated codepoints as 162 "Temporary" following the procedures specified in [RFC7120] 163 Section 3.1 165 5. IANA Considerations 167 This document requires the addition of TLVs 23 and 223 to the 168 existing Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141, and 222 registry as described in 169 Section 2. 171 This document requires the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs (135, 172 235, 236, 237) be combined into a single registry as described in 173 Section 3. 175 6. Security Considerations 177 This document introduces no new security issues. 179 7. Acknowledgements 181 The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their 182 input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes 183 implemented. 185 8. References 187 8.1. Normative References 189 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 190 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 192 [RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control 193 Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130, 194 February 2008. 196 [RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, 197 "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for 198 IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009. 200 [RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for 201 Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011. 203 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 204 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014. 206 8.2. Informational References 208 [RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF 209 and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 210 (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", 211 RFC 3563, July 2003. 213 Author's Address 215 Les Ginsberg 216 Cisco Systems 217 510 McCarthy Blvd. 218 Milpitas, CA 95035 219 USA 221 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com