1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Request for Comments: 7370 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track September 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry</span>
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.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370</a>.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7370">RFC 7370</a> IS-IS TLV Codepoints September 2014</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7370">RFC 7370</a> IS-IS TLV Codepoints September 2014</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry was created by [<a href="./rfc3563" title=""Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development"">RFC3563</a>] and
extended by [<a href="./rfc6233" title=""IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges"">RFC6233</a>]. The assignment policy for the registry is
"Expert Review" as defined in [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>]. As documents related to
IS-IS 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 (I-Ds) that seem likely to eventually gain Working
Group approval, without waiting for those I-Ds 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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="grey">Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7370">RFC 7370</a> IS-IS TLV Codepoints September 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry</span>
There was an existing common sub-TLV registry named "Sub-TLVs for
TLVs 22, 141, and 222". [<a href="./rfc5311" title=""Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for IS-IS"">RFC5311</a>] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute
TLV (23) and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). The format of
these TLVs is identical to TLVs 22 and 222, respectively. The IS
Neighbor sub-TLV registry has been extended to include these two
TLVs. Settings for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the
settings for TLVs 22 and 222, respectively.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry</span>
Previously, there existed separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135,
235, 236, and 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 have been 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. The format of the registry is
as shown below:
Type Description 135 235 236 237 Reference
---- ------------ --- --- --- --- ---------
0 Unassigned
1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y y y y [<a href="./rfc5130" title=""A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags"">RFC5130</a>]
2 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y y y y [<a href="./rfc5130" title=""A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags"">RFC5130</a>]
3-255 Unassigned
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Guidance for Designated Experts</span>
When new I-Ds 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 [<a href="./rfc7120" title=""Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points"">RFC7120</a>]. However, the procedures in [<a href="./rfc7120" title=""Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points"">RFC7120</a>] for
early allocation do not apply to registries, such as the "IS-IS TLV
Codepoints" registry, that utilize the "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.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7370">RFC 7370</a> IS-IS TLV Codepoints September 2014</span>
2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
from I-Ds 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 they MAY raise issues for further
consideration before the assignments are made.
5. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will
update the registry by 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 [<a href="./rfc7120" title=""Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points"">RFC7120</a>] MUST be
followed for the relevant codepoints -- noting that the
Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group
chairs.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This document provides guidance to the Designated Experts appointed
to manage allocation requests in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.
IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for
TLVs 22, 141, and 222" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141,
222, and 223".
Per this document, the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135, 235,
236, and 237 have been combined into a single registry -- the
"Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237" registry -- as described
in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document introduces no new security issues.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7370">RFC 7370</a> IS-IS TLV Codepoints September 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5130">RFC5130</a>] Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control
Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", <a href="./rfc5130">RFC 5130</a>,
February 2008, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
May 2008, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5311">RFC5311</a>] McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand,
"Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for
IS-IS", <a href="./rfc5311">RFC 5311</a>, February 2009,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6233">RFC6233</a>] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for
Purges", <a href="./rfc6233">RFC 6233</a>, May 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7120">RFC7120</a>] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp100">BCP 100</a>, <a href="./rfc7120">RFC 7120</a>, January 2014,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3563">RFC3563</a>] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
(JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", <a href="./rfc3563">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3563">3563</a>, July 2003, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563</a>>.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7370">RFC 7370</a> IS-IS TLV Codepoints September 2014</span>
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 <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>.
Author's Address
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
United States
EMail: ginsberg@cisco.com
Ginsberg Standards Track [Page 7]
</pre>
|
