Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs 8 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Some comments from Ari Keränen who helped me in some of my reviews today:
This document updates 3 RFCs, should say that in the abstract. Also LSP acronym
should be expanded.
> This document requests that IANA assign code point 13 for the 'Purge
Originator Identification' TLV from the IS-IS 'TLV Codepoints
Registry'. The additional values for this TLV should be: IIH:n,
LSP:y, SNP:n, Purge:y.
I assume that this is OK with this document but usually an Internet-Draft
cannot / should not make a request for a specific value, but just require a
code point value and recommend that this value be 13.
Balloting no objection assuming there is an easy answer to my question
(posted to draft-ietf-isis-reg-purge-00) about the IANA ISIS-TLV
registry and notifying ISO JTC1.
Please add a pointer for where I can find the definition of system ID.
In the Intro, this document states:
Field experience has observed several circumstances where an IS can
improperly generate a purge. These are all due to implementation
deficiencies or implementations that predate [ISO TC1] and generate a
purge when they receive a corrupted LSP.
In the security considerations, it is noted that:
Therefore, all implementations in a domain implementing
authentication MUST be upgraded to receive the POI TLV before any IS
is allowed to generate a purge with the POI TLV.
Since you need to touch every ISIS implementation in the domain anyway, is it
worth stating that implementations SHOULD be updated for consistency with [ISO
TC1] (i.e., and not generate a purge when they receive a corrupted LSP) at the