Template version: 2/24/2012 (per RFC4858)
Date of Revision: 2/8/2016
WG LC: 5/29 to 6/12/2015
(1) What type of RFC: Proposed Standard
Why - specifies a TRILL IS-IS application sub-TLV
(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 specifies a TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links) IS-IS application sub-TLV that enables the reporting by a
TRILL switch of sets of addresses. Each set of addresses reports all
of the addresses that designate the same interface (port) and also
reports the TRILL switch by which that interface is reachable. For
example, a 48-bit MAC (Media Access Control) address, IPv4 address,
and IPv6 address can be reported as all corresponding to the same
interface reachable by a particular TRILL switch. Such information
could be used in some cases to synthesize responses to or by-pass the
need for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP), the IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery (ND) protocol, or the flooding of unknown MAC addresses.
Working Group Summary
No. Working Group discussions indicate that this
new application sub-tlv for TRILL ISIS was the best solution.
This is part of the directory services set of drafts.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
No, and this draft is part of a 4 draft directory service dealing
with directory services. The four drafts are:
draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms () - describes the push/pull
draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 - secure tunnel for directory push
draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv-05 - reporting of addresses for TRILL interfaces
in ISIS application sub-TLV (reduces/replaces need for ARP/ND )
draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization - mechanism to optimize ARP and ND traffic
on TRILL campus
b) Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification?
Directory service mechanism are currently implemented as proprietary
fashions by every vendor that does some variant of TRILL (cisco, brocade, Huawei
and others). Until we get a full standard solution approved, the
existing vendors with "early TRILL" implementations have little reason
to switch.
Huawei is planning implementations. Potentially Brocade and Cisco
could switch to these mechanisms, but unless IETF standards are out
as a set - this may not occur.
Shepherd's review resulted in simplification of section 2.
No MIB, Media type or other expert review.
Personnel
Document shepherd: Susan Hares
WG Chairs: Jon Hudson and Susan Hares
Area Director: Alia Atlas
(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.
1) Shepherd did in in-depth review of the document resulting in
draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv-06.txt>
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The WG and the Shepherd did in-depth review.
Two people provided additional reviews: Linda Dunbar and Gayle Noble.
No RTG-Directorate person could be found to do a QA review for
8 months after WG LC so this is going to the AD without a
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.
Security directorate reviewer should pay attention to the use of
EASDI or RBridge channel in the section 4 (Security concerns).
The WG, authors, and the shepherd felt these features plus normal
ISIS security addressed the concerns.
(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.
Donald Eastlake
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/YXNxa1MiqL-jJy1nnAqLTH0NnEs
Yizhou Li
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/N9xwKq_FLQSYE3-fdcvmnNt0kUE
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures
(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?
Solid consensus on this draft as part of the directory services
solution. The complete directory services solution has been discussed
for 3+ years. This general solution has been discussed during several
IETFs.
(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
Only NIT is that this draft was last updated 50 days ago.
It has been waiting for the RTG-Directorate review for 8 months after
WG LC. It is being forwarded to AD without the Routing Directorate QA review.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
no additional review criteria.
(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
The ID-NITS lists ISO-10589 as a possible downref, but this is an error.
Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-10589'
(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.
(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, this draft only adds a new sub-tlv to TRILL ISIS.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.
17-a) pre-Allocated AFN (section 5.1)
IANA has pre-allocated the following AFN values that may be useful for IA
APPsub-TLVs which are listed in the document:
Hex Decimal Description References
----- ------- ----------- ----------
0001 1 IPv4
0002 2 IPv6
4005 16389 48-bit MAC [RFC7042]
4006 16390 64-bit MAC [RFC7042]
4007 16391 OUI This document.
4008 16392 MAC/24 This document.
4009 16393 MAC/40 This document.
400A 16394 IPv6/64 This document.
400B 16395 RBridge Port ID This document.
Other AFNs can be found at http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-
family-numbers
17b) section 5.2 - IANA requested to create
new subregistry of the TRILL Parameter Registry
for sub-sub-TLVs of the Interface Addresses
APPsub-TLV with initial contents as shown below.
Name: Interface Addresses APPsub-TLV Sub-Sub-TLVs
Procedure: Expert Review
Note: Types greater than 255 are not usable in some contexts.
Reference: [This document]
Type Description Reference
------ ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 AFN Size [This document]
2 Fixed Address [This document]
3 Data Label [This document]
4 Topology [This document]
5-254 Available
255 Reserved
256-65534 Available
65535 Reserved
17-d) IANA Review
IANA is requested to allocate TBD1 as the Type for the IA APPsub-TLV
in the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application
Identifier 1" registry from the range under 256. In the registry the
Name is "IA" and the Reference is this 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 5226).
(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 following new registry requires expert review:
IA APPsub-TLV Sub-Sub-TLVs SubRegistry
Name: Interface Addresses APPsub-TLV Sub-Sub-TLVs
Procedure: 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, etc.
none needed