idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-link-attr-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 217. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 228. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 235. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 241. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 4) being 59 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: Link excluded from local protection path (0x02). When set, this link SHOULD not be included in any computation of a repair path by any other router in the routing area. The triggers for setting up this bit are out of the scope of this document. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 6, 2007) is 6282 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IS-IS' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3784 (Obsoleted by RFC 5305) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4020 (Obsoleted by RFC 7120) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3567 (Obsoleted by RFC 5304) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur 2 Internet-Draft S. Previdi 3 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc 4 Expires: August 10, 2007 February 6, 2007 6 Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute sub-TLV 7 draft-ietf-isis-link-attr-03.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 12 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 13 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 14 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2007. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 38 Abstract 40 This document defines a sub-TLV called "Link-attributes" carried 41 within the TLV 22 and used to flood some link characteristics. 43 Requirements Language 45 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 46 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 47 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2. Link-attributes sub-TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. Interoperability with routers non supporting this 54 capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 1. Introduction 66 [IS-IS] specifies the IS-IS protocol (ISO 10589) with extensions to 67 support IPv4 in [RFC1195]. A router advertises one or several Link 68 State Protocol data units which are composed of variable length 69 tuples called TLVs (Type-Length-Value). 71 [RFC3784] defines a set of new TLVs whose aims are to add more 72 information about links characteristics, increase the range of IS-IS 73 metrics and optimize the encoding of IS-IS prefixes. 75 This document defines a new sub-TLV named "Link-attributes" carried 76 within the extended IS reachability TLV (type 22) specified in 77 [RFC3784]. 79 2. Link-attributes sub-TLV format 81 The link-attribute sub-TLV is carried within the TLV 22 and has a 82 format identical to the sub-TLV format used by the Traffic 83 Engineering Extensions for IS-IS ([RFC3784]): 1 octet of sub-type, 1 84 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV followed by the 85 value field - in this case, a 16 bit flags field. 87 The Link-attribute sub-type is 19 (to be assigned by IANA) and has a 88 length of 2 octets. 90 This sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST appear at most once for a single IS 91 neighbor. If a received LSP contains more than one Link-Attribute 92 Sub-TLV, an implementation MAY decide to consider only the first 93 encountered instance. 95 The following bits are defined: 97 Local Protection Available (0x01). When set, this indicates that the 98 link is protected by means of some local protection mechanism (e.g 99 [RFC4090]). 101 Link excluded from local protection path (0x02). When set, this link 102 SHOULD not be included in any computation of a repair path by any 103 other router in the routing area. The triggers for setting up this 104 bit are out of the scope of this document. 106 3. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability 108 A router not supporting the link-attribute sub-TLV will just silently 109 ignore this sub-TLV. 111 4. IANA Considerations 113 IANA will assign a new codepoint for the link-attribute sub-TLV 114 defined in this document and carried within TLV 22. Suggested value 115 is 19 (to be assigned by IANA). 117 IANA is requested to create a registry for bit values inside the 118 link-attributes sub-TLV. The initial contents of this registry will 119 be: 121 Value Name Reference 122 ----- ---- --------- 123 0x1 Local Protection Available [This Document] 124 0x2 Link Excluded from Local Protection [This Document] 126 Further values are to be allocated by the Standards Action process 127 defined in [RFC2434], with Early Allocation (defined in [RFC4020]) 128 permitted. 130 5. Security Considerations 132 Any new security issues raised by the procedures in this document 133 depend upon the opportunity for LSPs to be snooped and modified, the 134 ease/difficulty of which has not been altered. As the LSPs may now 135 contain additional information regarding router capabilities, this 136 new information would also become available to an attacker. 137 Specifications based on this mechanism need to describe the security 138 considerations around the disclosure and modification of their 139 information. Note that an integrity mechanism, such as one defined 140 in [RFC3567] should be applied if there is high risk resulting from 141 modification of capability information. 143 6. Acknowledgements 145 The authors would like to thank Mike Shand, Les Ginsberg and Bill 146 Fenner for their useful comments. 148 7. References 150 7.1. Normative References 152 [IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain 153 Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol 154 for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", 155 ISO 10589. 157 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 158 dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. 160 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 161 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 163 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 164 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 165 October 1998. 167 [RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate 168 System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", 169 RFC 3784, June 2004. 171 [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 172 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, 173 February 2005. 175 7.2. Informative References 177 [RFC3567] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to 178 Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", 179 RFC 3567, July 2003. 181 [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute 182 Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, 183 May 2005. 185 Authors' Addresses 187 JP Vasseur 188 Cisco Systems, Inc 189 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 190 Boxborough, MA 01719 191 USA 193 Email: jpv@cisco.com 195 Stefano Previdi 196 Cisco Systems, Inc 197 Via Del Serafico 200 198 Roma, 00142 199 Italy 201 Email: sprevidi@cisco.com 203 Full Copyright Statement 205 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 207 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 208 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 209 retain all their rights. 211 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 212 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 213 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 214 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 215 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 216 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 217 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 219 Intellectual Property 221 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 222 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 223 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 224 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 225 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 226 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 227 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 228 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 230 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 231 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 232 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 233 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 234 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 235 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 237 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 238 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 239 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 240 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 241 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 243 Acknowledgment 245 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 246 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).