IS-IS Multi-Instance
draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-03

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-01.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/

all references to RFC 6822 are to be replaced with [ RFC-to-be ].

IANA understands that the remainder of the actions described in the IANA Considerations section of the current draft have already been completed as a result of completing actions for RFC 6822.

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: isis-wg@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, akatlas@gmail.com, Christian Hopps , draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Multi-Instance) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis)
to consider the following document:
- 'IS-IS Multi-Instance'
  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 2017-04-07. 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 draft describes a mechanism that allows a single router to share
  one or more circuits among multiple Intermediate System To
  Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol instances.

  Multiple instances allow the isolation of resources associated with
  each instance.  Routers will form instance specific adjacencies.
  Each instance can support multiple topologies.  Each topology has a
  unique Link State Database (LSDB).  Each Protocol Data Unit (PDU)
  will contain a new Type Length Value (TLV) identifying the instance
  and the topology(ies) to which the PDU belongs.

  This draft updates RFC 6822 if approved.





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

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


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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: isis-wg@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, akatlas@gmail.com, Christian Hopps , draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Multi-Instance) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis)
to consider the following document:
- 'IS-IS Multi-Instance'
  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 2017-03-31. 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 draft describes a mechanism that allows a single router to share
  one or more circuits among multiple Intermediate System To
  Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol instances.

  Multiple instances allow the isolation of resources associated with
  each instance.  Routers will form instance specific adjacencies.
  Each instance can support multiple topologies.  Each topology has a
  unique Link State Database (LSDB).  Each Protocol Data Unit (PDU)
  will contain a new Type Length Value (TLV) identifying the instance
  and the topology(ies) to which the PDU belongs.

  This draft updates RFC 6822 if approved.





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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis/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:

    Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction
    of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are
    deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

This document updates RFC6822 to allow for the use of multi-topology IS-IS
(RFC5120) extensions within multi-instance IS-IS instances. This was previously
not allowed.

    Working Group Summary:

    Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
    there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the
    consensus was particularly rough?

No.

    Document Quality:

    Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
    number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are
    there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough
    review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that
    the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media
    Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a
    Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Implementations exist and are deployed with the changes. Other implementations
are in the pipeline.

    Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

    (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 change to the RFC while technically incompatible is actually already
deployed by vendors and represents a loosening of restrictions only.

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

No.

    (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.

    (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?

Confrimed no known IPR.

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

No.

    (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.

    (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
        Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
        check needs to be thorough.

None.

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

A simple updat, no formal review required.

    (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.

No.

    (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.

Yes, it's a bis update to an existing RFC.

    (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).

No changes here.

    (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 changes here.

    (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.

None needed.

In Berlin Les presented draft-ietf-isis-mi-bis-00.txt.
It was pointed out that we have two implementations which have been tested for interoperabilility and no response has been received regarding possible backwards compatibility issues since the document became a WG document in May and we asked the question.
Les concluded the presentation by requesting WGLC