Skip to main content

IS-IS Fast Flooding
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-07-15
11 Carlos Pignataro Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-07-15
11 Carlos Pignataro Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Victor Kuarsingh was marked no-response
2024-05-20
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2024-05-17
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2024-05-17
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2024-05-17
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2024-05-14
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-05-14
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-05-14
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-05-13
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-05-13
11 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-05-13
11 Jenny Bui IESG has approved the document
2024-05-13
11 Jenny Bui Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-05-13
11 Jenny Bui Ballot approval text was generated
2024-05-13
11 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-05-13
11 John Scudder IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2024-05-13
11 John Scudder IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-05-13
11 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-11.txt
2024-05-13
11 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2024-05-13
11 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2024-05-02
10 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss points and comments. It was great to work with you all. I think the current version of this …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my discuss points and comments. It was great to work with you all. I think the current version of this document is better, hence, cleared my discuss.
2024-05-02
10 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] Position for Zaheduzzaman Sarker has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2024-05-02
10 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-10.txt
2024-05-02
10 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2024-05-02
10 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2024-04-10
09 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-04-10
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-04-10
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-04-10
09 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-09.txt
2024-04-10
09 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2024-04-10
09 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2024-04-04
08 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2024-04-04
08 (System) Changed action holders to Tony Li, Tony Przygienda, Bruno Decraene, Les Ginsberg, Gunter Van de Velde, Guillaume Solignac, Marek Karasek (IESG state changed)
2024-04-04
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2024-04-04
08 John Scudder Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-04-04
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks for Mirja for the TSVART review.

I would like to discuss the following points as I …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks for Mirja for the TSVART review.

I would like to discuss the following points as I believe some clarifications would help -

- Does the flow and congestion control algorithm 1 assume that there is only on (input)queue in a particular link? I understand that the motivation for congestion control algorithm 2 is that there are multiple input queues and defining rwin is difficult. Why is that easy for the case of algorithm 1?

- Can we really call congestion control algorithm 2 a congestion control algorithm? We are are really solving the problem of flow control, it sounded more like a emergency break ( aka circuit breaker ) to me where you reduce or even stop sending LSPs. My point is I am not sure how to interpret the congestion control algorithm 2 with any sort of details. If I replace section 6.3.2 with - "if the routing architecture does not support deterministic rwin, the transmitter MUST adapts the transmission rate based on measurement of the actual rate of acknowledgments received." what harm would it cause?

- For the congestion control algorithm 2, I am missing when the transmitter should reduce or when it should stop sending as I am not sure reducing the transmission rate would solve the problem of not. This comes from lack of details on the particular algorithm that will be implemented eventually.   

- Section 6.3.2. says -

    The congestion control algorithm MUST NOT assume the receive performance of a neighbor is static, i.e., it MUST handle transient conditions which result in a slower or faster receive rate on the part of a neighbor.

  How to separate the persistent congestion from transient slower receive rate? I am not sure how to fulfill the "MUST".
2024-04-04
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
I have some further questions or comments -

- How does the implementers select between congestion control (CC) algorithm 1 and 2? or …
[Ballot comment]
I have some further questions or comments -

- How does the implementers select between congestion control (CC) algorithm 1 and 2? or is the intention that both gets implemented and after experiments we pick one? As in my discuss point I am not sure about the CC algorithm 2 on how to conclude on the experiments.

- It already says flow control and congestion control is a Layer-4 responsibility, it would be great if we can say why that is not the preferred layer for fast flooding even if it may be obvious for some of us.

- Section 6.3.2 says -

    When congestion control is necessary, it can be implemented based on knowledge of the current flooding rate and the current acknowledgement rate.

  So, how do we know when the congestion control is necessary?
2024-04-04
08 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-04-03
08 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Ines Robles for the GENART review.
2024-04-03
08 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-04-02
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-04-02
08 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-04-02
08 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot comment]
I am an author of this one.
2024-04-02
08 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-03-30
08 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-08
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-08
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

* I like that it's Experimental, but it might be good to have text around
  what a "successful experiment" would like for when/if this comes back
  around to be elevated to Standards Track.

  I'm assuming a successful experiment includes plenty of "plugfest"
  interoperability testing.  But of more interest would be having some
  report about congestion control lessons learned (vis S6 proposals).
2024-03-30
08 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-03-20
08 John Scudder Shepherding AD changed to John Scudder
2024-03-20
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2024-03-20
08 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-08.txt
2024-03-20
08 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2024-03-20
08 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2024-03-20
07 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde
2024-03-13
07 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-03-13
07 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Barry Leiba.
2024-03-07
07 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-04-04
2024-03-06
07 John Scudder Ballot has been issued
2024-03-06
07 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-03-06
07 John Scudder Created "Approve" ballot
2024-03-06
07 John Scudder IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-03-06
07 John Scudder Ballot writeup was changed
2024-03-04
07 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to acee.ietf@gmail.com from acee-ietf@gmail.com
2024-02-29
07 Mirja Kühlewind Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind. Review has been revised by Mirja Kühlewind.
2024-02-29
07 Mirja Kühlewind Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind. Sent review to list.
2024-02-29
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-02-28
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-28
07 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints registry in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry group located at: 

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

the following temporary registration will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Type: 21
Description: Flooding Parameters TLV
IIH: y
LSP: n
SNP: y
Purge: n

Second, a new registry is to be created called the IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Flooding Parameters TLV registry. The new registry will be located in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry group located at: 

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

The registration policy for the new registry will be Expert Review as defined by RFC8126.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type    Description  Reference
-----+------------+-------------
0      Reserved              [ RFC-to-be ]
1      LSP Burst Size          [ RFC-to-be ]
2      LSP Transmission Interval    [ RFC-to-be ]
3      LSPs Per PSNP          [ RFC-to-be ]
4      Flags                    [ RFC-to-be ]
5      Partial SNP Interval        [ RFC-to-be ]
6      Receive Window            [ RFC-to-be ]
7-255  Unassigned

Third, a new registry is to be created called the IS-IS Bit Values for Flooding Parameters Flags Sub-TLV registry.

The new registry will be located in the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry group located at: 

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

The registration policy for the new registry will be Expert Review as defined by RFC8126.

There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Bit #  Description  Reference
-----+------------+------------
0      Ordered acknowledgement (O-flag)  [ RFC-to-be ]
1-63 Unassigned

We understand that these three actions are the only ones 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-02-28
07 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list.
2024-02-22
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles
2024-02-22
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Barry Leiba
2024-02-19
07 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Mirja Kühlewind
2024-02-16
07 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2024-02-15
07 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-15
07 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: acee-ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-29):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: acee-ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Fast Flooding) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Fast Flooding'
  as Experimental RFC

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-29. 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


  Current Link State Protocol Data Unit (PDU) flooding rates are much
  slower than what modern networks can support.  The use of IS-IS at
  larger scale requires faster flooding rates to achieve desired
  convergence goals.  This document discusses the need for faster
  flooding, the issues around faster flooding, and some example
  approaches to achieve faster flooding.  It also defines protocol
  extensions relevant to faster flooding.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5797/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5323/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3823/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5205/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3670/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5336/





2024-02-15
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-02-15
07 John Scudder Last call was requested
2024-02-15
07 John Scudder Last call announcement was generated
2024-02-15
07 John Scudder Ballot approval text was generated
2024-02-15
07 John Scudder Ballot writeup was generated
2024-02-15
07 John Scudder IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-02-15
07 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-02-15
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-02-15
07 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-07.txt
2024-02-15
07 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2024-02-15
07 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2024-02-05
06 John Scudder Waiting for updates for TSVART review (or conclusion that no updates are required), see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/C7t5-IEvRMhgAtYQgULmKluswCk/
2024-02-05
06 (System) Changed action holders to Bruno Decraene, Les Ginsberg, Tony Li, Guillaume Solignac, Marek Karasek, Gunter Van de Velde, Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed)
2024-02-05
06 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-02-02
06 Mirja Kühlewind Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind. Sent review to list.
2024-02-01
06 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-02-01
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-02-01
06 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-06.txt
2024-02-01
06 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2024-02-01
06 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2024-01-26
05 Magnus Westerlund Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Mirja Kühlewind
2024-01-25
05 John Scudder See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/76gX3R26Eqy96c4a05HWjj5aosU/
2024-01-25
05 (System) Changed action holders to Bruno Decraene, Les Ginsberg, Tony Li, Guillaume Solignac, Marek Karasek, Gunter Van de Velde, Tony Przygienda (IESG state changed)
2024-01-25
05 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-01-25
05 John Scudder Requested Early review by TSVART
2024-01-24
05 John Scudder Taking this out-of-sequence to complete clearing LSR queue.
2024-01-24
05 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2024-01-24
05 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2023-11-06
05 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Loa Andersson. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-10-07
05 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Loa Andersson.
2023-09-12
05 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson
2023-09-05
05 Acee Lindem
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad …
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.
2023-09-05
05 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2023-09-05
05 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2023-09-05
05 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-09-05
05 Acee Lindem Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-09-05
05 Acee Lindem
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad …
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.
2023-09-05
05 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-05.txt
2023-09-05
05 Bruno Decraene New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bruno Decraene)
2023-09-05
05 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2023-09-01
04 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to acee-ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-09-01
04 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2023-09-01
04 Acee Lindem
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad …
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.
2023-08-31
04 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2023-06-28
04 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04.txt
2023-06-28
04 Bruno Decraene New version approved
2023-06-28
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Chris Bowers , Guillaume Solignac , Gunter Van de Velde , Les Ginsberg , …
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
2023-06-28
04 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2023-03-13
03 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-03.txt
2023-03-13
03 Jenny Bui Posted submission manually
2023-01-10
02 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-02.txt
2023-01-10
02 (System) New version approved
2023-01-10
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Chris Bowers , Guillaume Solignac , Gunter Van de Velde , Les Ginsberg , …
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
2023-01-10
02 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2022-09-02
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure ORANGE's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding
2022-07-11
01 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-01.txt
2022-07-11
01 Jenny Bui Posted submission manually
2022-06-12
00 (System) Document has expired
2021-12-09
00 Acee Lindem Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2021-12-09
00 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding instead of draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding
2021-12-09
00 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00.txt
2021-12-09
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-12-09
00 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding instead of None
2021-12-09
00 Bruno Decraene New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-00.txt
2021-12-09
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-12-09
00 Bruno Decraene Set submitter to "Bruno Decraene ", replaces to draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-12-09
00 Bruno Decraene Set submitter to "Bruno Decraene ", replaces to draft-decraeneginsberg-lsr-isis-fast-flooding and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-12-09
00 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision
2021-12-09
00 Bruno Decraene Uploaded new revision