Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

(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 - The Document defines a set of extensions for
advertising sub-L3 information for making l2bundle links "visible".
As such IANA code-points are required, hence the "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

   There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS
   operates is a Layer 2 interface bundle.  Existing IS-IS
   advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the Layer
   3 interface.  If entities external to IS-IS wish to control traffic
   flows on the individual physical links which comprise the Layer 2
   interface bundle link attribute information about the bundle members
   is required.
   The extension in this document are mostly used for:
   1) telemetry applications which build segment-routing stacks such that
   child-links of a bundle can get probed. 2) TE to manage the load on child
   links if there is an imbalance.

Working Group Summary
  There was some controversy mostly triggered by
  network operators that the use-cases are not clear and
  wether IS-IS is the correct place for these extensions.
  BGP-LS was suggested as an alternative, mostly
  because BGP-LS is a strict northbound protocol
  and this would be the precedent-case for a pure-northbound
  protocol (= no receive side logic) in IS-IS.

Document Quality

  There is one implementation for Cisco IOS-XR (TBC) and
  Interop testing has been done between TBC ?


 Hannes Gredler (isis-wg co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.
 Alia Atlas is the 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.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed all versions of the draft and the
accompanying discussion on the mailing-list.

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

yes, an rtgwg discussion how to manage children of L3-bundles
in a protocol agnostic way SHOULD be done.

(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.

An operational review on the question how should management of L3 bundles
be handled would be a good recommendation.

(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.

The Document shepherd thinks that this document addresses a problem which should
not be handled in IS-IS but rather by some other
operational/management/telemetry protocol. Just because it can be done in IS-IS
does not imply that it SHOULD be done in IS-IS. Despite the authors assurance
that an OSPF draft will be available, no OSPF draft is available to date.
Furthermore a rtgwg discussion how to manage children of L3-bundles in a
protocol agnostic way SHOULD be done.

(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.

IPR declarations from Clarence Filsfils and Ebben Aries are missing.

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

no WG discussion around IPR

(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?

 Strong concurrence of a few individuals. Suggestions from the operator
 community have not been picked up during the document stream

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

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

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


(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?

there is a reference to the IS-IS segment routing extensions for which there
is no clear schedule for completion.

(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.


(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 IANA sub-registry for the IS-reach TLVs (22-23-141-222-223) need to get
extended with the new TLV 25.

(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 registries are required.

(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.