Advertising Node Administrative Tags in IS-IS
RFC 7917
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Just some minor comments: 1. Section 1. (Introduction) 1.a "This document provides mechanisms to advertise node administrative tags in IS-IS for route and path selection." While route and path selection is an application, that is not what this document does -- that is just one application. 1.b "…the new TLV for carrying node administrative tags…" It's a sub-TLV. 2. Section 2. (Node Administrative Tags): "An IS-IS router SHOULD advertise the set of groups it is part of in the specific IS-IS level." Do you really want to use "SHOULD"? Given that this extension is optional and that configuring the tags is also optional, and that even the CAPABILITY TLV is optional, I think "SHOULD" is too strong. s/SHOULD/MAY or even s/SHOULD/should 3. s/diiferent/different 4. Section 8. (Manageability Considerations): "…[I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]…[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model]…These two documents need to be enhanced to include the node administrative tag related configurations." I hope that this text means that someone (maybe one of the authors) will work to enhance those other documents before publication (and not later write separate extension documents).
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
Agree with Alvaro's point #4. This seems like a bit of a weird statement to make in an RFC; if updates to the other documents are expected then maybe this document should say that?
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
Just a couple of nits: - 4.1, last paragraph: "Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be used in policy to perform a policy action." I think the MAY may be spurious. It seems to be a statement of fact about the tag, rather than an implementation choice. (But this is a borderline case of spuriousness). - 8: In addition to Alvaro and Alissa's comments, remember that RFCs live forever. Statements that other work needs to happen will (hopefully) become dated. Some qualifier like "At the time of this writing..." can help.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
Juergen Schoenwaelder performed the opsdir review
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection