Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-05

[Ballot comment]
Some comments from Ari Keränen who helped me in some of my reviews today:

Abstract

This document updates 3 RFCs, should say that in the abstract. Also LSP acronym should be expanded.

[Ballot comment]
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 same time?

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
>  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.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
action that needs to be completed.

In the TLV Codepoints Registry within the IS-IS TLV Codepoints located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml

a new TLV is to be registered as follows:

Value: TBD
Name: Purge Originator Identification
IIH: n
LSP: y
SNP: n
Status/Reference: [RFC-to-be]

IANA notes that, when the document that proposes a "purge" column for
IS-IS TLVs is approved, this document will set the "purge" value to "Y"
for theTLV defined in this document ("Purge Originator Identification").

IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of
this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

To: IETF-Announce 
From: The IESG
Reply-to: ietf@ietf.org
CC:
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv (Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis)
to consider the following document:

- 'Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS '
    as a 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 2011-01-18. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-05.txt


IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=20005&rfc_flag=0

Please note that this document makes normative reference to ISO/IEC 10589:2002 and ISO/IEC 10589:1992/ Cor.1:1993

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?


David Ward


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

There has been sufficient review. There are no concerns about completeness or consensus

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No


(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No IPR has been filed to my knowledge

(1.e) 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?


The idea of the purge TLV was first discussed in Dublin at IETF 72. There was concern by the group that the extension was necessary as the spec was clear. After a couple years of discussion and working through the idea and rearrangement of the purge TLV space; consensus has been achieved. Nonetheless, one can find a lot of discussion over the last 2.5 years on the idea.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?


Nits shows some referencing issues that should be cleared up, otherwise they both pass


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Yes. Refs are split

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?


IANA refs appear to be complete and correct

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?


Yes

(1.k) 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.


At present an IS-IS purges do not contain any information
identifying the Intermediate System (IS) that generates the purge.
This makes it difficult to locate the source IS.

To address this issue, the purge-tlv document defines a TLV to be added to
purges to record the system ID of the IS generating it. Since normal
LSP flooding does not change LSP contents, this TLV should propagate
with the purge.

This reg-purge draft documents which TLVs can appear in different types of IS-IS PDUs, but
does not document which TLVs can be found in zero Remaining Lifetime
LSP (a.k.a., purges). This document extends the existing registry to
record the set of TLVs that are permissible in purges.


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?

There is one known implementation