IS-IS Autoconfiguration
draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-05

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8196, changed title to 'IS-IS Autoconfiguration', changed abstract to 'This document specifies IS-IS autoconfiguration mechanisms.  The key components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection, and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS functions and are therefore suitable for networks where plug-and-play configuration is expected.', changed pages to 15, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-07-13, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your response and updates to the SecDir review.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_DxRs_eINTVE8E-N3S31Zr_10B8

I don't see any privacy considerations with the identifiers created, discussed in System ID and Router-Fingerprint Generation Considerations and Section 3.2.  Are they in later documents that use these identifiers?  I see they may not be unique in home networks, but are there considerations for how they might be used that need to be documented?  Thanks in advance.

[Ballot comment]
-4: "In general, the use of authentication is incompatible with auto-
  configuration as it requires some manual configuration."

What are the consequences/risks due to that incompatibility?

[Ballot comment]
Some editorial comments:

page 3:
> It SHOULD not be changed due to device status change (such as
interface > enable/disable, interface plug in/off, device reboot,
firmware update etc.)

The term “due to” is confusing. It might be change to “It SHOULD not
be changed until the device status change”  or “It SHOULD not be
changed as the device status change” according to the meaning.


Page 8
> As specified in this document, there are two distinguisher need to
be > self-generated, which is System ID and Router-Fingerprint. 

s/which is/which are


Page 9
>  In a network device, normally there are resources which provide an
> extremely high probability of uniqueness thus could be used as seeds
to > derive distinguisher (e.g. hashing or generating pseudo-random
numbers), > such as:

Suggest to split the sentence to make it more readable.

[Ballot comment]
* Section 3.3.

The TLV format seems to be off. Why does there seem to be a two octet gap between the Type and Length fields and the Flags field. I think the flag field needs to be pulled forward to bit 16 and the Router fingerprint to bit 24.

Also agree with Alvaro's comments.

[Ballot comment]
Small comment:

section 3.4.2.: "Routers operating in auto-configuration mode MUST NOT form
  adjacencies with routers which are NOT operating in auto-configuration mode."

It's not fully clear to me which actions will follow in this case... abort start-up/configuration and log an error?

[Ballot comment]
COMMENT
I am having trouble reconciling 3.4.4 and 3.4.6.

3.4.4 seems to tell us how to handle the situation where both System-Id
and Router-Fingerprint are identical:

  If the fingerprints are identical in both content and length (and
  state of the S bit is identical) and the duplication is detected in
  hellos then the both routers MUST generate a new System ID and
  restart the protocol.

And then 3.4.6 says:

  Also note that the conditions for detecting duplicate System
  ID will NOT be satisfied because both the System ID and the Router-
  Fingerprint will be identical.

So, I am confused.


"entropy" is already a collective noun, so I think if you want to
pluralize it, you need to say "sources of entropy"


I am surprised that you are recommending HMAC-MD5, but I guess that's
how IS-IS rolls?

[Ballot comment]
I have a series of comments -- they don't add up to a DISCUSS, but I think it is important that they are solved before publication.

(1) In Section 3.3. (Router-Fingerprint TLV), the format presented doesn't actually show the "flags field", which is described in the text, but it shows its contents.  The length is defined as "the length of the value field", but the figure doesn't explicitly show the Value field.  It is probably obvious that the flags field + Router Fingerprint = Value, but it would be nice to be specific.

Suggestion: include the 1 octet "flags field" in the drawing -- if needed, then show the detail (where the S and A bits are) in the description of the field.


(2) What about the other bits in the Flag field, how should they be registered in the future (if needed)?  Please ask IANA to define a registry for them.

(3) Section 3.1. (IS-IS Default Configuration) mentions several TLVs that MUST NOT be used...and Section 3.3. (Router-Fingerprint TLV) says that this TLV MUST NOT be included in an LSP with a non-zero LSP number.  What should a receiving node do if any of those conditions are not true?

(4) s/3.4.3.  IS-IS System ID Duplication Detection and Resolution/3.4.3.  IS-IS System ID Duplication Detection

(5) I thought the point of this document was for use in "unmanaged deployments.  It allows IS-IS to be used without the need for any configuration by the user."  But Section 3.5. (Additional IS-IS TLVs Usage Guidelines) has recommendations for configuration options, including manually configured adjacencies (which should not be allowed according to Section 3.4.2. (Adjacency Formation)).  Isn't this against the stated reasons for this document?

(6) Authentication is one of those features that could be manually configured -- but the default is no authentication.  There's a higher-than-usual risk of a node listening on the network (probably a bigger problem for the user traffic), but also one that could listen to the Hellos and purposefully trigger the duplicate resolution mechanism to continuously run.  This risk should be highlighted in the Security Considerations because it is newly introduced here. [Robert Sparks pointed this risk out during his GenArt review.]

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the TLV Codepoints Registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

a single, new codepoint will be added to the registry as follows:

Type Description IIH LSP SNP Purge Reference
----------------------- ------------ --- --- --- ----- ---------------
[ TBD-at-Registration ] Router-Fingerprint Y Y N Y [ RFC-to-be]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, Hannes Gredler , hannes@gredler.at, isis-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (ISIS Auto-Configuration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis)
to consider the following document:
- 'ISIS Auto-Configuration'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-04-10. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies IS-IS auto-configuration mechanisms.  The key
  components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection
  and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS
  functions, and so are suitable for networks where plug-and-play
  configuration is expected.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard

(2) 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 IS-IS auto-configuration mechanisms.  The key
components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection
and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS
functions, and so are suitable for networks where plug-and-play
configuration is expected.

Working Group Summary

Not much controversy. Throwing in ideas which thw authors graciously did pick up.

Document Quality

There are two independent implementations.
Not much interest from the main-stream router vendors.


Personnel

  Hannes Gredler is the Document Shepherd
  Alia Atlas is the Routing-AD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

Have read through all iterations of the document and reviewed all the on-list exchanges of the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

no, the document looks good for producing a interoperable implementation.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

no

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

no concerns here. perhaps a question to IESG why do we as IETF not endorse more zero-conf work ?

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  yes, all the authors have confirmed that there are no known IPR claims.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

no IPR disclosure has been filed

(9) 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? 

solid support.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document is ready for publication

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  no

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no change to existing RFCs

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The instructions to IANA are clear and complete.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

no new IANA registries

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Internet Standard

(2) 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 IS-IS auto-configuration mechanisms.  The key
components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection
and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS
functions, and so are suitable for networks where plug-and-play
configuration is expected.

Working Group Summary

Not much controversy. Throwing in ideas which thw authors graciously did pick up.

Document Quality

There are two independent implementations.
Not much interest from the main-stream router vendors.


Personnel

  Hannes Gredler is the Document Shepherd
  Alia Atlas is the Routing-AD

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

Have read through all iterations of the document and reviewed all the on-list exchanges of the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

no, the document looks good for producing a interoperable implementation.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

no

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.

no concerns here. perhaps a question to IESG why do we as IETF not endorse more zero-conf work ?

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  yes, all the authors have confirmed that there are no known IPR claims.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

no IPR disclosure has been filed

(9) 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? 

solid support.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

no

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document is ready for publication

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  yes

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

  no

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

no change to existing RFCs

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The instructions to IANA are clear and complete.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

no new IANA registries

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A