IS-IS Extension to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-02-26 |
11 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/a4a4I4fP73DyfKsdKnRw_tRuStQ/ |
2021-02-26 |
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Peter Psenak, Clarence Filsfils, Bruno Decraene, Ahmed Bashandy, Zhibo Hu (IESG state changed) |
2021-02-26 |
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2021-01-27 |
11 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2021-01-27 |
11 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> |
2020-11-13 |
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions and draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext | |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 (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 RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. (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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This draft describes the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an IPv6 data plane. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were some vigorous discussions with regards to the extensions (and the underlying technology being supported by the extensions), but nothing particularly rough in the resulting consensus on the extensions themselves. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are multiple implementations of this work deployed. Some implementation status is given in the document which will be removed prior to publication. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd: Christian Hopps AD: Alvaro Retana (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 shepherd has reviewed the latest versions of this document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns based on the latest 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 broader review is required. (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. The shepherd has a minor concern that the document that these extensions support (I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming) is still progressing in the IETF with continued controversy. These IS-IS extensions by themselves are not controversial; however, the shepherd hopes that this document would not be used in support dismissing Last Call concerns on the base document (i.e., for it to be used as an "end-run" so to speak). (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. IPR disclosure has been filed, no WG discussion. (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 solid support for this document. (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.) The base document that this document supports was appealed, and that appeal was declined. The shepherd is not aware of any threat to appeal this IGP extension document though. (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. Unused Reference: 'RFC7370' (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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? See (15). (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. There is a reference to the base SPRING documents that this IS-IS extensions document supports. As mentioned above there continues to be controversy over the base document, although they do appear to be progressing none-the-less. [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] (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). The IANA section seems OK. The sub-sub-tlv registry being created does not include any specific guidance for the designated experts. It does refer to the relevant sections to which the registry relates. (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 IANA Registry: Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs is being created with expert review. (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? No YANG. |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Christian Hopps | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions/ Write-up for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 (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 RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. (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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This draft describes the IS-IS extensions required to support Segment Routing over an IPv6 data plane. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were some vigorous discussions with regards to the extensions (and the underlying technology being supported by the extensions), but nothing particularly rough in the resulting consensus on the extensions themselves. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are multiple implementations of this work deployed. Some implementation status is given in the document which will be removed prior to publication. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd: Christian Hopps AD: Alvaro Retana (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 shepherd has reviewed the latest versions of this document. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns based on the latest 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 broader review is required. (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. The shepherd has a minor concern that the document that these extensions support (I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming) is still progressing in the IETF with continued controversy. These IS-IS extensions by themselves are not controversial; however, the shepherd hopes that this document would not be used in support dismissing Last Call concerns on the base document (i.e., for it to be used as an "end-run" so to speak). (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. IPR disclosure has been filed, no WG discussion. (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 solid support for this document. (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.) The base document that this document supports was appealed, and that appeal was declined. The shepherd is not aware of any threat to appeal this IGP extension document though. (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. Unused Reference: 'RFC7370' (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (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? See (15). (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. There is a reference to the base SPRING documents that this IS-IS extensions document supports. As mentioned above there continues to be controversy over the base document, although they do appear to be progressing none-the-less. [I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam] [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] (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). The IANA section seems OK. The sub-sub-tlv registry being created does not include any specific guidance for the designated experts. It does refer to the relevant sections to which the registry relates. (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 IANA Registry: Sub-Sub-TLVs for SID Sub-TLVs is being created with expert review. (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? No YANG. |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11.txt |
2020-10-08 |
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-08 |
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com> |
2020-10-08 |
11 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-23 |
10 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-10.txt |
2020-09-23 |
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-23 |
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com> |
2020-09-23 |
10 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-08 |
09 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-09.txt |
2020-09-08 |
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-08 |
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com> |
2020-09-08 |
09 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-23 |
08 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-08.txt |
2020-04-23 |
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-23 |
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com> |
2020-04-23 |
08 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-23 |
07 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-07.txt |
2020-03-23 |
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-23 |
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com> |
2020-03-23 |
07 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-03 |
06 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-06.txt |
2020-03-03 |
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-03 |
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com> |
2020-03-03 |
06 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-17 |
05 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-05.txt |
2020-02-17 |
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-17 |
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com> |
2020-02-17 |
05 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-21 |
04 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-01-15 |
04 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-04.txt |
2020-01-15 |
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-15 |
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com> |
2020-01-15 |
04 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-04 |
03 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-03.txt |
2019-10-04 |
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-04 |
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com> |
2019-10-04 |
03 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-01 |
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions | |
2019-09-03 |
02 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> |
2019-09-03 |
02 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Christian Hopps |
2019-07-09 |
02 | Acee Lindem | This document now replaces draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions instead of None |
2019-07-04 |
02 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-02.txt |
2019-07-04 |
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-04 |
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com> |
2019-07-04 |
02 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-04 |
01 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-01.txt |
2019-07-04 |
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-04 |
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, Zhibo Hu <huzhibo@huawei.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com> |
2019-07-04 |
01 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-31 |
00 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-00.txt |
2019-05-31 |
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-05-31 |
00 | Peter Psenak | Set submitter to "Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-05-31 |
00 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |