TLV for Experimental Use
draft-ietf-isis-experimental-tlv-05

Sent a comment on the IANA section to chopps. Pending
resolution.

Since in the IS-IS case IANA action happens well before a document
is approved by the IESG, the usual form "IANA is requested to allocate
foo and bar" doesn't apply.

I would rephrase the current text as follows though:

  IANA allocated IS-IS TLV codepoint 250 for IIH, LSP, and SNP through the
  expert review process per [RFC3563]. No additional action is required on the
  IANA part except to update the registry with a new reference to this document
  when it is published as an RFC.

Something along these lines. Note that [3] is obsolete now.

Here's what I got after a quick look through the draft:

1. Text in Introduction--

> 3. Introduction
...
>    No single authority assigns TLV codes, [3] lists most known TLV
>    codes at this time.  Also no TLV code was ever defined for
>    experimental use.
>   
>    The extensible nature of IS-IS has made the use of TLVs in LSPs for
>    non-standard purposes so useful that in the absence of a central
>    authority for assigning TLV type numbers vendors have occasionally
>    simply chosen a number and hoped for the best.  The risk is that
>    such a TLV code may then be chosen by another organization at a
>    later time for a different function, thus creating an
>    interoperability problem. Also this accelerates the depletion of the
>    256 possible TLV codes.

--mentions that there's no authority that manages TLV codes. Since we
have IANA doing this now, those words should probably be removed from
the reasoning.

2. Need an IANA considerations section that would instruct IANA to
  change the registry. Even though the registry currently shows this
  code assigned to a draft, we want them to automatically change it
  to the right RFC number when this doc is out.