Generation of Unique IS-IS System Identifiers
draft-simpson-isis-ppp-unique-02

Discuss

(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)

No Record

(Adrian Farrel)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Russ Housley Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2011-08-10) Unknown 
  ISIS WG seems like the right place for this document to be handled.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Yes) Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2011-08-08) Unknown 
This document proposes an extension to the ISIS protocol to allow an intermediate system to automatically select a system identifier, to automatically detect a system identifier conflict, and to negotiate an new system identifier in the event of a conflict.

The document has been reviewed by a number of ISIS experts all of whom have raised various issues with the document.  The discussion and resolution of these issues needs to take place within an IETF working group that is competent to deal with the ISIS protocol. Ideally this would be the ISIS working group, although with an appropriate change to title and document scope and applicability text it might be dealt with in the TRILL WG with review in the ISIS WG. Details of the email threads and reviews will be made available to the ISE on request.

I have discussed the matter with the ISIS Working Group Chairs and they confirm that they are not in receipt of any email from  the author asking them to consider the subject matter contained in the draft as an item for working group discussion.

Given the above my recommended  RFC5742 response from the IESG to the ISE is:

 "The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
   in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
   published without IETF review and IESG approval.

   If the ISE decides to proceed with publication without the requested redirection 
   to the ISIS (or TRILL) WG, the IESG requests the opportunity to add an 
   IESG note to the document before publication."
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-08-08) Unknown 
ID Nits says the following:

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1220
     (Obsoleted by RFC 1638)

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1717
     (Obsoleted by RFC 1990)
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2011-08-10) Unknown 
I see no reason not to support Stewart's 5742 action.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Record
No Record (2011-08-08) Unknown 
Bringing this work forward as Experimental in the Independent Stream when there is a working group specifically devoted to ISIS and another that works on the use of ISIS for shortest-path frame routing in multi-hop IEEE 802.1-compliant Ethernet networks avoids proper review and discussion in the IETF. The document should be properly reviewed and discussed by the IETF community, and I support Stewart's Discuss and proposed 5742 resolution.

I note that an Experiment in this area is not necessarily a bad thing if the scope of the experimentation can be defined and if the ISIS working group confirms that they are happy to go ahead in this way rather than produce a standards track solution.