IS-IS Fast Flooding
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-05

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is a strong consensus for this document. Interest peaked during its intial
discussion and evolution and many WG memebers contributed to the discussion.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
There was initial discussion as to whether or not IS-IS neighbors should
exchange flooding parameters since vendors have already implemented their own
extensions based solely on acknowledgements and internal metrics. However, it
was agreed upon to standardize an optional IS-IS TLV.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are existing implementation of both advertising and interpreting the new
TLV and sub-TLVs. While are variations of the implemented fast-flooding algorithms,
all the implementations adhere to the principles in section 6.

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The draft is specific to the IS-IS and a Routing Directorate Last Call review has
been requested.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The draft is Experimental with the fast flooding algorithms being non-normative.
This is probably the right status as there is much to be learned from deployment
and testing of the extensions.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There IPRs from three separate parties and all of them are with
favorable terms if the document is adopted as a standard.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Chris Bowers has retired and was unavailable for the IPR poll. He did respond
    to the WG Adoption IPR poll and has been moved from the author list to the
    contributor list.

    Since the document was the result of separate efforts by three different
    parties, the author list is greater than five. After efforts to identify
    contributions of the co-authors, the author list has been reduced to seven.
    The list of final authors and their contribution is listed below:

  Bruno Decraene - One of the primary authors of the final document and of one
                    of the documents that was merged.
  Les Ginsberg - One of the primary authors of the final document and of one of
                  the documents that was merged.
  Tony Li - Author of the final document and one of the primary author of the
            merged document.
  Guillaume Solignac - Author of one of the merged documents. Primary developer
                        and performance tester for Orange implementation of
                        IS-IS extensions. Co-author of final document.
  Marek Karasek - Author on one of the merged documents. Primary developer and
                  performance tester for the Cisco implementation of the
                  IS-IS extensions. Co-author of final document.
  Gunter Van de Velde - Author on final document. Reviewer and interface to
                        Nokia IS-IS development.
  Tony Przygienda - Author of one of the merged documents. Author of final
                    document. Interface to Juniper IS-IS development.         
     
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No normative references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.   

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The shepherd reviewed the "IANA Considerations" section.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document creates the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Flooding Parameters TLV" registry
and the"IS-IS Bit Values for Flooding Parameters Flags Sub-TLV" registry that
both require expert review. The other TLV/sub-TLV registries with expext review
designate Chris Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler as expert. It would
seem that we should continue with these experts or at least have some overlapp.

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is a strong consensus for this document. Interest peaked during its intial
discussion and evolution and many WG memebers contributed to the discussion.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
There was initial discussion as to whether or not IS-IS neighbors should
exchange flooding parameters since vendors have already implemented their own
extensions based solely on acknowledgements and internal metrics. However, it
was agreed upon to standardize an optional IS-IS TLV.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are existing implementation of both advertising and interpreting the new
TLV and sub-TLVs. While are variations of the implemented fast-flooding algorithms,
all the implementations adhere to the principles in section 6.

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The draft is specific to the IS-IS and a Routing Directorate Last Call review has
been requested.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The draft is Experimental with the fast flooding algorithms being non-normative.
This is probably the right status as there is much to be learned from deployment
and testing of the extensions.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There IPRs from three separate parties and all of them are with
favorable terms if the document is adopted as a standard.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Chris Bowers has retired and was unavailable for the IPR poll. He did respond
    to the WG Adoption IPR poll and has been moved from the author list to the
    contributor list.

    Since the document was the result of separate efforts by three different
    parties, the author list is greater than five. After efforts to identify
    contributions of the co-authors, the author list has been reduced to seven.
    The list of final authors and their contribution is listed below:

  Bruno Decraene - One of the primary authors of the final document and of one
                    of the documents that was merged.
  Les Ginsberg - One of the primary authors of the final document and of one of
                  the documents that was merged.
  Tony Li - Author of the final document and one of the primary author of the
            merged document.
  Guillaume Solignac - Author of one of the merged documents. Primary developer
                        and performance tester for Orange implementation of
                        IS-IS extensions. Co-author of final document.
  Marek Karasek - Author on one of the merged documents. Primary developer and
                  performance tester for the Cisco implementation of the
                  IS-IS extensions. Co-author of final document.
  Gunter Van de Velde - Author on final document. Reviewer and interface to
                        Nokia IS-IS development.
  Tony Przygienda - Author of one of the merged documents. Author of final
                    document. Interface to Juniper IS-IS development.         
     
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No normative references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.   

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The shepherd reviewed the "IANA Considerations" section.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document creates the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Flooding Parameters TLV" registry
and the"IS-IS Bit Values for Flooding Parameters Flags Sub-TLV" registry that
both require expert review. The other TLV/sub-TLV registries with expext review
designate Chris Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler as expert. It would
seem that we should continue with these experts or at least have some overlapp.

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is a strong consensus for this document. Interest peaked during its intial
discussion and evolution and many WG memebers contributed to the discussion.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
There was initial discussion as to whether or not IS-IS neighbors should
exchange flooding parameters since vendors have already implemented their own
extensions based solely on acknowledgements and internal metrics. However, it
was agreed upon to standardize an optional IS-IS TLV.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are existing implementation of both advertising and interpreting the new
TLV and sub-TLVs. While are variations of the implemented fast-flooding algorithms,
all the implementations adhere to the principles in section 6.

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The draft is specific to the IS-IS and a Routing Directorate Last Call review has
been requested.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

N/A

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The draft is Experimental with the fast flooding algorithms being non-normative.
This is probably the right status as there is much to be learned from deployment
and testing of the extensions.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes. There IPRs from three separate parties and all of them are with
favorable terms if the document is adopted as a standard.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. Since the document was the result of separate efforts by three different
    parties, the author list is greater than five. The authors are currently
    attempting to determine if the list can be reduced.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.

None.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

No normative references.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.   

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The shepherd reviewed the "IANA Considerations" section.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This document creates the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Flooding Parameters TLV" registry
and the"IS-IS Bit Values for Flooding Parameters Flags Sub-TLV" registry that
both require expert review. The other TLV/sub-TLV registries with expext review
designate Chris Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler as expert. It would
seem that we should continue with these experts or at least have some overlapp.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Chris Bowers , Guillaume Solignac , Gunter Van de Velde , Les Ginsberg , Marek Karasek , Peter Psenak , Tony Li , Tony Przygienda

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Chris Bowers , Guillaume Solignac , Gunter Van de Velde , Les Ginsberg , Marek Karasek , Peter Psenak , Tony Li , Tony Przygienda