M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)
RFC 5120
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
Inconsistent use of RFC2119 terms throughout, but especially in Section 7. There are a number of lower-case 2119 terms where the uppercase is clearly warranted. There are also paraphrases that should be replaced with the implied 2119 terms. (I was considering to make this a DISCUSS, but since the intended meaning of the text is clear, I felt a strong COMMENT was sufficient.) Please expand acronyms (SPF, IIH, TLV, LSP, DIS, etc.) on first use or at least point to a document that defines them. Section 2., paragraph 1: > Each adjacency formed MUST be classified as belonging to a set of > MTs on the interface. This is achieved by adding a new TLV into > IIH packets that advertises which topologies the interface belongs > to. If MT #0 is the only MT on the interface, it is optional to > advertise it in the new TLV. Thus not including such a TLV in the > IIH implies MT ID #0 capability only. The logic here is actually the opposite of what is stated: _Because_ not including a TLV implies MT #0 only, it is OPTIONAL to include it. Section 2., paragraph 3: > In the case of adjacency contains multiple MTs on an interface, and > if there exists overlapping IP address space among the topologies, > additional mechanism MAY be used to resolve the topology identity of > the incoming IP packets on the interface. This paragraph is unfortunately too terse to understand what issues this could cause and why and what "additional mechanisms" may be desirable. Section 10., paragraph 0: > 10. Acknowledgments Nit: Typically comes just before the references. Section 12., paragraph 0: > 12. IANA Considerations I second Brian's concerns about the IANA considerations.
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) Discuss
IANA Considerations issue:
IANA is requested to create a new registry, "IS-IS multi-topology ID
values" with the assignment listed in Section 7.5 of this document
and registration policies for future assignments.
That doesn't look right. This document should define the
policy (Standards Action or whatever, as per RFC 2434).
From Gen-ART review by Miguel Garcie:
- Section 8 says:
"The implementation and configuration MUST make sure the IP packets are only traversed through the nodes and links intended for the topologies and applications".
The normative MUST is not actionable. Which actions do I need to take in the implementation to implement the MUST? How can the interoperability of those features be demonstrated?
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) Yes
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was No Objection, Discuss) Yes
Please add a terminology section to expand the ISIS acronyms.
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
I am carrying forward Ted's no objection, but have not otherwise reviewed this document.
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
> To prevent > unnecessary complexity, MT extensions does not support > partition repair. The overload, partition and attached bits in LSP > header only reflect the status of the default topology. Did you mean "To prevent unnecessary complexity, MT extensions do not support partition repair for other partitions than the default partition"?
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Abstain
I'm not familiar enough with ISIS to give this a good review.
(David Ward; former steering group member) Recuse
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Recuse