Advertising Node Administrative Tags in IS-IS
RFC 7917

[Ballot discuss]
Peter Yee's Gen-ART review raised this issue which I agree with. Can this be defined in a more clear fashion? Or is there already a definition somewhere else that I had not seen?

Page 5, section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: The sentence states:
"Being part of the Router CAPABILITY TLV, the node administrative tag
sub-TLV MUST be reasonably small and stable."  If you're going to make this
a MUST, you've got to at least give a definition of "reasonably small" and
perhaps even "stable" in the context of this specification.  As it stands,
there's no test for whether the MUST is enforceable or understandable
between parties.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot comment]
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).

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 subregistry of the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

a new codepoint is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Per-Node-Admin-Tag Sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

IANA understands that this is the only action 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "Christian Hopps" , isis-wg@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, akatlas@gmail.com, draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis)
to consider the following document:
- 'Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS'
  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 2016-04-29. 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


  This document describes an extension to the IS-IS routing protocol to
  add an optional operational capability, that allows tagging and
  grouping of the nodes in an IS-IS domain.  This allows simple
  management and easy control over route and path selection, based on
  local configured policies.

  This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per-
  node administrative tags in IS-IS protocols.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2461/

PROTO Questionaire and Write-up for: draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-08

Shepherding WG-Chair: Chris Hopps (chopps@chopps.org)

    (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
    this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title
    page header?

Proposed Standard

    Technical Summary:

This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per-
node administrative tags in the IS-IS routing protocol.

    Working Group Summary:

There was no controversy in the WG over this draft.

    Document Quality:

There is good interest in the industry to implementing this standard.

    Personnel:

Shepherd: Christian Hopps.
AD: 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.

I have reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.

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

No

    (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 special review is needed.

    (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.

No specific 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?

Yes.

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

Yes. No discussions.

    (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?

Strong consensus in the WG.

    (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
    Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
    thorough.

None

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

N/A.

    (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.

No.

    (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. 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).

Confirmed that registry that needs new entry has been identified.

    (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.

N/A.