Internet DRAFT - draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints
draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track May 22, 2014
Expires: November 23, 2014
Updates to IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
draft-ginsberg-isis-tlv-codepoints-00.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 defines early allocation procedures for codepoints
managed by 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 November 23, 2014.
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 November 23, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints May 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.
Ginsberg Expires November 23, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints May 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. IS Neighbor sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Prefix Reachability sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Early Allocation of Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ginsberg Expires November 23, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints May 2014
1. Introduction
The IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry was created by [RFC3563] and
extended by [RFC6233]. As IS-IS related RFCs are published the
codepoints required for the protocol extensions are added to the IANA
managed registry. In the case of TLVs supporting neighbor
advertisement a common sub-TLV registry has been created. This sub-
TLV registry needs to include additional neighbor advertisement TLVs
defined in [RFC5311].
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.
There is a need to support early allocation of codepoints defined in
drafts which seem likely to eventually gain WG approval. The
procedure for obtaining early allocation of codepoints is described.
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:
Ginsberg Expires November 23, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints May 2014
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. Early Allocation of Codepoints
When new drafts are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is
advantageous to have the ability to do early allocation of
codepoints. The reasons this is advantageous and the process to do
so is described in [RFC7120]. However, [RFC7120] procedures 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. The
following procedures are defined. Note these procedures apply
specifically to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry. This document is
not defining a general early allocation process for other Expert
Review registries.
1. In order to qualify for early allocation a draft MUST be accepted
as a WG document
2. The author(s) of the draft MAY request early allocation of
codepoints to the chair(s) of the WG in which the document is
submitted
3. The WG chair(s) gauge whether there is consensus within the WG
that early allocation is appropriate for the given document and
that the conditions for early allocation specified in [RFC7120]
Section 2 are satisfied. If so the request is forwarded to the
Area Director(s).
4. If the Area Director(s) approve, the request is forwarded to the
Designated Experts for their approval.
5. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval IANA will
update the registry marking the allocated codepoints as
"Temporary" following the procedures specified in [RFC7120]
Section 3.1
Ginsberg Expires November 23, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints May 2014
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.
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.
[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
Ginsberg Expires November 23, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft isis-tlv-codepoints May 2014
(JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
RFC 3563, July 2003.
Author's Address
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Ginsberg Expires November 23, 2014 [Page 7]
