Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-trill-05

[Ballot discuss]
This DISCUSS is a placeholder to ensure an issue with
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16 is addressed before publication.
I"ll clear as soon as updates to draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16
are agreed to and the RFC Editor is informed of the changes.

draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16 was written before draft-ietf-isis-layer2
was split into 3 documents.  A reference to draft-ietf-isis-trill
needs to be added to draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16, and
citations to draft-ietf-isis-layer2 need to be checked against
the split between draft-ietf-isis-layer2 and draft-ietf-isis-trill.

This DISCUSS also applies to draft-ietf-isis-layer2, but there is no
need to delay publication of draft-ietf-isis-layer2 while
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-16 is updated.

[Ballot discuss]
Before approving this document I believe that the following statement made in the Introduction section needs clarification:

> Intermediate Systems
  (ISs) implementing TRILL are compatible with IEEE 802.1 customer
  bridges and can incrementally replace such bridges.

What does 'compatible' mean in this context?
What are the IEEE 802.1 customer bridges that can incrementally be replaced by ISs implementing TRILL. Either a reference to the exact IEEE 802.1 standards or a reference to the IETF documents that specify these would be useful.

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS: There are a bunch of codepoint uses marked with "[TBD]" in
  this document. What needs to be determined and by whom, and should the
  RFC Editor not remove those upon publication?

[Ballot comment]
I only skimmed the document, but I have no objections.

It might be worth mention the byte order used for fields longer than 1 byte.

IANA has questions about the IANA Actions requested in this document.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are nnnnn
IANA Actions that must be completed.

First, IANA is asked to assign new PDU types to these PDUs and reflect
them in the PDU registry. The authors have suggested values as follows:

MTU-PROBE-PDU Level-1 PDU Number: 23
MTU-ACK-PDU Level-1 PDU Number: 28

IANA QUESTION: In what registry are these values to be registered? Can
the authors provide a URL for the registry being considered? Or is this
a registry to be created upon the approval of:

draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol

Second, in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml

two new values are to be registered as follows:

TLV# IIH LSP SNP NUMBER
GADDR-TLV tbd - X - *
TRILL Neighbor TLV tbd X - - *

The authors request values 142 for GADDR-TLV and 145 for TRILL Neighbor
TLV. The reference in each case will be the newly approved [RFC-to-be].

Third, the document request the creation of new sub-TLV registrations.
The authors state that: "This document specifies eleven new sub-TLVs
from existing sub-TLV sequences..." However IANA is unable to identify
existing sub-TLV registries for the TLVs specified (except for TLV 10)
in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml

IANA QUESTION: Do the authors intend that new Sub-TLV registries be
created for each of the TLVs listed in the following table (with the
exception of TLV 10 which already exists)?

sub- MT Port Router Extended NUM
TLV# Capabil. Capabil. IS Reach
VLAN-FLAGS 1 X - - 1
Enabled-VLANs 2 X - - *
AppointedFwrdrs 3 X - - *
TRILL-VER 5 - X - 0-1
NICKNAME 6 - X - *
TREES 7 - X - 0-1
TREE-RT-IDs 8 - X - *
TREE-USE-IDs 9 - X - *
INT-VLAN 10 - X - *
VLAN-GROUP 11 - X - *
MTU 6 - - X 0-1

Fourth, IANA will create a new sub-TLV IS-IS sub-registry for sub-TLVs
within the Group Address (GADDR) TLV created above in the second IANA
Action above. There is a single initial registration in this new
registry to be lcoated at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml

Following the sub-TLV registraions for other sub-TLVs the initial
registration will be:

sub-TLV: 1
the sub-TLV may occur 0, 1, or more times
reference: [RFC-to-be]

The registration procedures for this new subregistry are IETF Review;
except that sub-TLV values 0x00 and 0xFF require an IETF Standards
action for assignment.

IANA understands that these four actions are all that are required upon
approval of this document.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

David Ward. The document is ready to be published according to the direction given by the ADs of INT and ROUTING Areas.


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

There are concerns still outstanding from the ISIS WG members. These concerns have caused a normative reference to be added to the document (draft-ietf-trill-adj) so that further review can be made during the review of that document. The primary issue at this time is around the (un)reliability of transmission of routing updates.


(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

Review by the Routing Directorate could be appropriate and/or specialists in the ISIS protocol.


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

The main issues by the document shepherd and members in the ISIS WG concern:


–Adjacency formation
–DRB (aka DIS) election
–Rules for two-way and MTU matching for advertisements
–Creation and use of pseudo-nodes


These items are to be addressed in draft-ietf-trill-adj. As mentioned there is a normative reference in this document to that one.


(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is moderate consensus hence the extraordinary action by the INT and ROUTING ADs.


(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

Appeals have been threatened. The INT and ROUTING ADs are aware as is the IETF chair.


(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

The document does not pass nits (boilerplate and other small issues).


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are appropriately split. There is a known dangling reference to draft-ietf-trill-adj. This document should be held in the RFC ED Queue until that document progresses (per INT and ROUTING ADs direction).


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes.


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes.


(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary

This document specifies the data formats and code points for the IS-IS extensions to support TRILL.

Working Group Summary

This document, isis-aq and isis-layer2 were originally one document. Through the review process it was determined that a split into a base document (isis-layer2) and -trill and -aq into separate documents. One solution to pass layer2 information in ISIS or at least one specification was desired but, the IEEE and IETF have each defined their own mechanism. Given the divergence of solutions, a specification split was appropriate.

Document Quality

There are known interoperable implementations of this technology based in earlier versions of the drafts. Earlier versions were based on additional PDUs in the ISIS protocol which have been changed to TLVs. It is reasonable that implementors can make the change and that earlier interoperation demonstrates that the solution is viable.