Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-01.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 13, 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 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. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry
• 3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry
• 4. Guidance for Designated Experts
• 5. IANA Considerations
• 6. Security Considerations
• 7. Acknowledgements
• 8. References
• 8.1. Normative References
• 8.2. Informational References
• Author's Address

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.

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]
1     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 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 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.

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

8.2. Informational References

Author's Address