Skip to main content

IS-IS Flood Reflection
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of Proposed Standard.

Experimental. This document level is experimental due to the fact that we have multiple proposed solutions solving the problem reducing the overhead for using level-1 for level-2 transit in a data center.

(2) 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:

This document provides extensions to IS-IS to support flooding reflection of IS-IS updates in a level-1 area used for level-2 transit. This reduces the requirement for a full mesh of adjacencies between Area Border Routers (ABRs) and allows the flooding reflection to be done by the server which doesn't necessarily participate in the data plane. The document also describes bbut tunneled and non-tunneled transit in the level-1 area.

Working Group Summary:

There is stong support among those reviewing the document. However, there was at least one WG participant who thought the WG would select one of the alternatives among those proposed rather than advancing experimental solutions with sufficent momentum.

Document Quality:

The document is of high quality although at least WG member believed the solution was too complex.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and comments required to for complete specification.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Of course, one would always wish for more reviews. IS-IS implementors have reviewed and Michael Richardson provided a very good Routing Directorate review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.

(9) 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?

There is support for publication and minimal objection. The Document Shepherd believes a good part of the objection stems from a misunderstanding of Experimental status.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits other than the Copyright date needs to be updated to 2022.

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

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been reviewed by the Document Shepherd and IS-IS Designated Experts prior to early allocation.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The IS-IS allocations of TLV and sub-TLVs come from existing registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-01-16
07 Acee Lindem

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of Proposed Standard.

Experimental. This document level is experimental due to the fact that we have multiple proposed solutions solving the problem reducing the overhead for using level-1 for level-2 transit in a data center.

(2) 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:

This document provides extensions to IS-IS to support flooding reflection of IS-IS updates in a level-1 area used for level-2 transit. This reduces the requirement for a full mesh of adjacencies between Area Border Routers (ABRs) and allows the flooding reflection to be done by the server which doesn't necessarily participate in the data plane. The document also describes bbut tunneled and non-tunneled transit in the level-1 area.

Working Group Summary:

There is stong support among those reviewing the document. However, there was at least one WG participant who thought the WG would select one of the alternatives among those proposed rather than advancing experimental solutions with sufficent momentum.

Document Quality:

The document is of high quality although at least WG member believed the solution was too complex.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and comments required to for complete specification.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Of course, one would always wish for more reviews. IS-IS implementors have reviewed and Michael Richardson provided a very good Routing Directorate review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.

(9) 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?

There is support for publication and minimal objection. The Document Shepherd believes a good part of the objection stems from a misunderstanding of Experimental status.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits other than the Copyright date needs to be updated to 2022.

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

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been reviewed by the Document Shepherd and IS-IS Designated Experts prior to early allocation.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The IS-IS allocations of TLV and sub-TLVs come from existing registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A
2022-01-16
07 Acee Lindem

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of Proposed Standard.

Experimental. This document level is experimental due to the fact that we have multiple proposed solutions solving the problem reducing the overhead for using level-1 for level-2 transit in a data center.

(2) 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:

This document provides extensions to IS-IS to support flooding reflection of IS-IS updates in a level-1 area used for level-2 transit. This reduces the requirement for a full mesh of adjacencies between Area Border Routers (ABRs) and allows the flooding reflection to be done by the server which doesn't necessarily participate in the data plane. The document also describes bbut tunneled and non-tunneled transit in the level-1 area.

Working Group Summary:

There is stong support among those reviewing the document. However, there was at least one WG participant who thought the WG would select one of the alternatives among those proposed rather than advancing experimental solutions with sufficent momentum.

Document Quality:

The document is of high quality although at least WG member believed the solution was too complex.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and comments required to for complete specification.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Of course, one would always wish for more reviews. IS-IS implementors have reviewed and Michael Richardson provided a very good Routing Directorate review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.

(9) 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?

There is support for publication and minimal objection. The Document Shepherd believes a good part of the objection stems from a misunderstanding of Experimental status.

(10) 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 publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No nits other than the Copyright date needs to be updated to 2022.

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

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) 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 plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and have been reviewed by the Document Shepherd and IS-IS Designated Experts prior to early allocation.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The IS-IS allocations of TLV and sub-TLVs come from existing registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342?

N/A
2021-12-09
07 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-07.txt
2021-12-09
07 (System) New version approved
2021-12-09
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Yiu Lee <yiu_lee@comcast.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-12-09
07 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-11-26
06 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-06.txt
2021-11-26
06 (System) New version approved
2021-11-26
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Yiu Lee <yiu_lee@comcast.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-11-26
06 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-11-25
05 Michael Richardson Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Michael Richardson. Sent review to list.
2021-11-25
05 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson
2021-11-25
05 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson
2021-11-22
05 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-11-22
05 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05.txt
2021-11-22
05 (System) New version approved
2021-11-22
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Yiu Lee <yiu_lee@comcast.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-11-22
05 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-11-22
04 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-10-21
04 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-04.txt
2021-10-21
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2021-10-21
04 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-07-11
03 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-03.txt
2021-07-11
03 (System) New version approved
2021-07-11
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma <alankar_sharma@comcast.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Russ White <russw@juniper.net>, Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>, Yiu Lee <yiu_lee@comcast.com>, lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-07-11
03 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-02-17
02 Christian Hopps Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2021-01-18
02 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-02.txt
2021-01-18
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2021-01-18
02 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2020-11-25
01 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to acee@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2020-11-25
01 Christian Hopps Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2020-07-27
01 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-01.txt
2020-07-27
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2020-07-27
01 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2020-07-06
00 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-lsr-isis-flood-reflection instead of None
2020-07-06
00 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-00.txt
2020-07-06
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-07-06
00 Tony Przygienda Set submitter to "Tony Przygienda <prz@juniper.net>", replaces to draft-lsr-isis-flood-reflection and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2020-07-06
00 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision