Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Multilevel Using Unique Nicknames
draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-07

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8397, changed title to 'Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Multilevel Using Unique Nicknames', changed abstract to 'TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) routing can be extended to support multiple levels by building on the multilevel feature of IS-IS routing.  Depending on how nicknames are managed, there are two primary alternatives to realize TRILL multilevel: the unique nickname approach and the aggregated nickname approach as discussed in RFC 8243.  This document specifies a unique nickname approach.  This approach gives unique nicknames to all TRILL switches across the multilevel TRILL campus.', changed pages to 16, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2018-05-31, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
In the security considerations,  isn't the requirement not that you configure IS-IS authentication but that you actually have to require it on receipt? Or are these the same things.

Even with ordinary trill, can't you just spoof a lot of announcements with other people's nicknames? Why is this different?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for responding to the SecDir review.  I also agree with Roman's questions on normative language and would like to see a response to his suggestions.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg07947.html

[Ballot comment]
(1) The nickname selection process for multilevel is not backwards compatible because of the use of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV.  That is ok since the border RBridges can recognize "old" Rbridges (ones that don't support this specification) in an area. A couple of related comments:

(1.1) Section 4.4. (Capability Indication) says that "Non border RBridges in an area SHOULD understand the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV."  That statement is somewhat contradictory (maybe that's not the right word, but the only one that comes to mind):

- On one hand, non border RBridges could be just be "old" (ones that don't support this specification).  We can't normatively specify something that by definition nodes that don't support this specification won't know about.

- On the other hand, if the non border Rbridge does support this specficiation, then why wouldn't it understand the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV?  IOW, why isn't the "SHOULD" a "MUST" instead?  When is it ok to not do it?

All this is to say that I think that "SHOULD" should not be used normatively.  s/SHOULD/should

(1.2) Given that rfc6325 specifies a single Level 1 network, it is reasonable to expect that networks implementing these multilevel extensions will grow from a single area to multiple.  It would be ideal to include Deployment Considerations to discuss what a Migration Path would look like.


(2) Maybe I missed it somewhere...  The Security Considerations section says that "border RBridges need to fabricate the nickname announcements...Malicious devices may also fake the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to announce a range of nicknames."  I'm sure that malicious devices don't only include ones that are unauthenticated, but may include over or under claiming by existing border RBridges or even non border RBridges originating the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV. 

(2.1) Is the origination of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV restricted to border RBridges?  If so, why isn't there a check to make sure that the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV came from a border RBridge?

(2.2) rfc8243 talks about the (potential) ability of border RBridges to "discover each other...by using the IS-IS "attached bit" [IS-IS] or by explicitly advertising in their LSP "I am a border RBridge".  But I didn't see these options/mechanisms mentioned in this document.

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

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

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

First, in the TRILL-VER Sub-TLV Capability Flags registry on the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/trill-parameters/

a single, new value is to be registered as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Able to handle the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question --> The TRILL-VER Sub-TLV Capability Flags registry does not have a Mnemonic field, yet the current draft specifies one. Is a correction needed?

Second, in the TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application Identifier 1 registry also on the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/trill-parameters/

a single, new value is to be registered as follows:

Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: NickBlockFlags
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions 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.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-03-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Susan Hares , akatlas@gmail.com, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL Multilevel Using Unique Nicknames) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document: - 'TRILL Multilevel
Using Unique Nicknames'
  as Proposed Standard

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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-03-06. 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


  TRILL routing can be extended to support multiple levels by building
  on the multilevel feature of IS-IS routing. Depending on how
  nicknames are managed, there are two primary alternatives to realize
  TRILL multilevel: the unique nickname approach and the aggregated
  nickname approach as discussed in RFC 8243. This document specifies a
  unique nickname approach. This approach gives unique nicknames to all
  TRILL switches across the multilevel TRILL campus.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Template: 2/24/2012
(1) Standard
type of RFC: Proposed standard
Why?  Adds new subTLVs for unique nicknames
(specifically adds new subTLVs under the APPsub-TLV
under the ISIS-TLV 251)

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. 
Technical Summary

  TRILL routing can be extended to support multiple levels by building
  on the multilevel feature of IS-IS routing. Depending on how
  nicknames are managed, there are two primary alternatives to realize
  TRILL multilevel: the unique nickname approach and the aggregated
  nickname approach as discussed in [MultiL]. This document specifies a
  unique nickname approach. This approach gives unique nicknames to all
  TRILL switches across the multilevel TRILL campus.

Working Group Summary

Consensus strong on this methodology.

A word on TRILL WG:
TRILL working worked on the multi-level, multiple topology work
item together over the last 3+ years.  The WG operates with
high discussion level at IETFs for these new features, and
individuals working hard on drafts between time.
During the last 12 months, early drafts in the
multi-level,  multiple topology (E.g. RFC8243)
have been approved.

Document Quality

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
Huawei and IPInfusion have TRILL implementations,
Scaling work was engaged in to aid long-term growth.
No implementations of this draft have been done.

Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
AD: Alia Atlas
RTG-QA reviewer:

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. 
RTG-QA review: Julien Meuric
Version: -01
Date: 4/14/2017
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/b3JMsb2AryJM4SWfXmhalOlQ8hg
Authors altered Draft to address the issues.

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

Due to the WG methodology, no concerns.
RTG-QA review has been addressed.

(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? 
No concerns.

(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.

Mingui Zhang
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/56p3c65YF0U-1z0gmBAZwbeZ19Y

Donald Eastlake
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/s1fSPcNuQdgjjHbCwMxycJB29TU

Radia Perlman
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/iHv_JgyhdXyCZRtrgm7w8b-F-Xo

Margaret Cullen
(not received)

Honjun Zhai
(not received)

Dongxin Liu
(not received

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

(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.)

(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.

a) draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel - needs to be revised to RFC8243,
but the RFC editor can do this

b) IDNITS - once again complains about ISIS (iso10589) reference
[it would be nice to fix that issue.]

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

none

(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.
none

(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. 

IANA is requested to register one new flag bit
under TRILL-VER SUB-TLV Capabilities registry.

IANA requested to register 1 new type for NickBlockFlags
APPsub-TLV from range below.

(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.

none

(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.

no automated checks.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Radia Perlman , Margaret Cullen , Mingui Zhang , Dongxin Liu , Hongjun Zhai , trill-chairs@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Radia Perlman , Margaret Cullen , Mingui Zhang , Dongxin Liu , Hongjun Zhai , trill-chairs@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Hongjun Zhai" , "Radia Perlman" , trill-chairs@ietf.org, "Donald Eastlake" , "Dongxin Liu" , "Mingui Zhang" , "Margaret Cullen"