IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-isis-te-bis-00

[Ballot discuss]
While this draft does not create any new security considerations, we need to provide readers
with a reference that describes the generic is-is security considerations.  [3567bis] would seem
to be the best choice.  This could reasonably be cleared with the following RFC Editor Note:


--- draft RFC Editor Note ----

(1) Please make the following substitution in section 5:

OLD

  This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

NEW

  This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS; for
  general security considerations for IS-IS see [RFC3567bis].

(2) In the Section 8.2, please insert the following reference:

[RFC3567bis]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
              Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
              work in progress.

[Ballot comment]
I do not intent to block the publication of this document or of the whole set of is-is documents as PS, but I would like to raise the issue of the manageability and operational considerations.

>  Mechanisms and procedures to migrate to the new TLVs are not
  discussed in this document.

Where are they discussed? What is the operational impact of the migration on existing networks?

Also, what changes from a manageability point of view. Does the IS-IS MIB published as RFC4444 already cover the functionality described in the series of I-Ds that we are now migrating from Experimental to PS, or does it need an update? Or maybe some other new management interfaces need to be introduced?

[Ballot comment]
ISIS has an IPv6 draft for the base proto and a V6-TE draft. V6 in ISIS is widely developed and deployed on the internet

[Ballot comment]
I support the publication of this spec as PS. I reviewed the diffs to
RFC 3784 and they seemed correct. I did have a few questions and
observations though:

1. I didn't understand the difference in use for Interface IP address
and Neighbor IP address options. Is some additional guidance needed
here? But this is the first IS-IS document that I read, its possible
that the answer is in some other documents :-)

2. For my education, what is the state of IPv6 support in IS-IS?

3. In the document header, there is confusing linewrap on "Working Group".

4. The first author's contact information needs an update. I changed the tracker to include him explicitly.

[Ballot comment]
I support the publication of this spec as PS. I reviewed the diffs to
RFC 3784 and they seemed correct. I did have a few questions and
observations though:

1. I didn't understand the difference in use for Interface IP address
and Neighbor IP address options. Is some additional guidance needed
here? But this is the first IS-IS document that I read, its possible
that the answer is in some other documents :-)

2. For my education, what is the state of IPv6 support in IS-IS?

3. In the document header, there is confusing linewrap on "Working Group".

4. The first author's contact information needs an update.

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints per [RFC3563]" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints
sub-registry "TLV Codepoints Registry"

OLD:

Name                                  Value IIH LSP SNP Status/Reference
------------------------------------- ----- --- --- --- ----------------
The extended IS reachability TLV      22    n  y  n  [RFC3784]
...
The Traffic Engineering router ID TLV 134  n  y  n  [RFC3784]
The extended IP reachability TLV      135  n  y  n  [RFC3784]


NEW:

Name                                  Value IIH LSP SNP Status/Reference
------------------------------------- ----- --- --- --- ----------------
The extended IS reachability TLV      22    n  y  n
[RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
...
The Traffic Engineering router ID TLV 134  n  y  n
[RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
The extended IP reachability TLV      135  n  y  n
[RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints per [RFC3563]" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints
sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22"


OLD:

Reference: [RFC3784]

Type Description                  Reference
---- ----------------------------- ---------
0    Unassigned
1    Unassigned
2    Unassigned
3    Administrative group (color)  [RFC3784]
4    Link Local/Remote Identifiers [RFC4205]
5    Unassigned
6    IPv4 interface address        [RFC3784]
7    Unassigned
8    IPv4 neighbor address        [RFC3784]
9    Maximum link bandwidth        [RFC3784]
10  Reservable link bandwidth    [RFC3784]
11  Unreserved bandwidth          [RFC3784]
12  Unassigned
13  Unassigned
14  Unassigned
15  Unassigned
16  Unassigned
17  Unassigned
18  TE Default metric            [RFC3784]

NEW:

Reference: [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]

Type Description                  Reference
---- ----------------------------- ---------
0    Unassigned
1    Unassigned
2    Unassigned
3    Administrative group (color)  [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
4    Link Local/Remote Identifiers [RFC4205]
5    Unassigned
6    IPv4 interface address        [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
7    Unassigned
8    IPv4 neighbor address        [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
9    Maximum link bandwidth        [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
10  Reservable link bandwidth    [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
11  Unreserved bandwidth          [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]
12  Unassigned
13  Unassigned
14  Unassigned
15  Unassigned
16  Unassigned
17  Unassigned
18  TE Default metric            [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
changes in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints per [RFC3563]" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints
sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV 135"


OLD:

Reference: [RFC3784]

NEW:

Reference: [RFC3784][RFC-isis-te-bis-00]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.