Skip to main content

IS-IS Autoconfiguration
RFC 8196

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-07-13
05 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8196, changed title to 'IS-IS Autoconfiguration', changed abstract to 'This document specifies IS-IS autoconfiguration mechanisms.  …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8196, changed title to 'IS-IS Autoconfiguration', changed abstract to 'This document specifies IS-IS autoconfiguration mechanisms.  The key components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection, and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS functions and are therefore suitable for networks where plug-and-play configuration is expected.', changed pages to 15, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-07-13, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2017-07-13
05 (System) RFC published
2017-07-13
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-06-27
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-06-23
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-06-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-06-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2017-06-02
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-06-02
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-06-02
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-06-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-06-02
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-06-02
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2017-06-02
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2017-06-02
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-06-02
05 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2017-06-02
05 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-05-08
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-05-08
05 Bing Liu New version available: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-05.txt
2017-05-08
05 (System) New version approved
2017-05-08
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bing Liu , Bruno Decraene , Mikael Abrahamsson , Ian Farrer , Les Ginsberg
2017-05-08
05 Bing Liu Uploaded new revision
2017-04-13
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-04-12
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-04-12
04 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your response and updates to the SecDir review.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_DxRs_eINTVE8E-N3S31Zr_10B8

I don't see any privacy considerations with the identifiers created, discussed in …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your response and updates to the SecDir review.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_DxRs_eINTVE8E-N3S31Zr_10B8

I don't see any privacy considerations with the identifiers created, discussed in System ID and Router-Fingerprint Generation Considerations and Section 3.2.  Are they in later documents that use these identifiers?  I see they may not be unique in home networks, but are there considerations for how they might be used that need to be documented?  Thanks in advance.
2017-04-12
04 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-04-12
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-04-12
04 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
-4: "In general, the use of authentication is incompatible with auto-
  configuration as it requires some manual configuration."

What are the consequences/risks …
[Ballot comment]
-4: "In general, the use of authentication is incompatible with auto-
  configuration as it requires some manual configuration."

What are the consequences/risks due to that incompatibility?
2017-04-12
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-04-12
04 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
Thanks for this.
2017-04-12
04 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-04-12
04 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
Some editorial comments:

page 3:
> It SHOULD not be changed due to device status change (such as
interface > enable/disable, interface plug …
[Ballot comment]
Some editorial comments:

page 3:
> It SHOULD not be changed due to device status change (such as
interface > enable/disable, interface plug in/off, device reboot,
firmware update etc.)

The term “due to” is confusing. It might be change to “It SHOULD not
be changed until the device status change”  or “It SHOULD not be
changed as the device status change” according to the meaning.


Page 8
> As specified in this document, there are two distinguisher need to
be > self-generated, which is System ID and Router-Fingerprint. 

s/which is/which are


Page 9
>  In a network device, normally there are resources which provide an
> extremely high probability of uniqueness thus could be used as seeds
to > derive distinguisher (e.g. hashing or generating pseudo-random
numbers), > such as:

Suggest to split the sentence to make it more readable.
2017-04-12
04 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2017-04-11
04 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot comment]
* Section 3.3.

The TLV format seems to be off. Why does there seem to be a two octet gap between the Type …
[Ballot comment]
* Section 3.3.

The TLV format seems to be off. Why does there seem to be a two octet gap between the Type and Length fields and the Flags field. I think the flag field needs to be pulled forward to bit 16 and the Router fingerprint to bit 24.

Also agree with Alvaro's comments.
2017-04-11
04 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-04-11
04 Will LIU Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shucheng LIU. Sent review to list.
2017-04-11
04 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing the point raised in the Gen-ART review.
2017-04-11
04 Alissa Cooper Ballot comment text updated for Alissa Cooper
2017-04-11
04 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-04-11
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with Alvaro's comments.
2017-04-11
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-04-11
04 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Small comment:

section 3.4.2.: "Routers operating in auto-configuration mode MUST NOT form
  adjacencies with routers which are NOT operating in auto-configuration mode." …
[Ballot comment]
Small comment:

section 3.4.2.: "Routers operating in auto-configuration mode MUST NOT form
  adjacencies with routers which are NOT operating in auto-configuration mode."

It's not fully clear to me which actions will follow in this case... abort start-up/configuration and log an error?
2017-04-11
04 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-04-10
04 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
COMMENT
I am having trouble reconciling 3.4.4 and 3.4.6.

3.4.4 seems to tell us how to handle the situation where both System-Id
and …
[Ballot comment]
COMMENT
I am having trouble reconciling 3.4.4 and 3.4.6.

3.4.4 seems to tell us how to handle the situation where both System-Id
and Router-Fingerprint are identical:

  If the fingerprints are identical in both content and length (and
  state of the S bit is identical) and the duplication is detected in
  hellos then the both routers MUST generate a new System ID and
  restart the protocol.

And then 3.4.6 says:

  Also note that the conditions for detecting duplicate System
  ID will NOT be satisfied because both the System ID and the Router-
  Fingerprint will be identical.

So, I am confused.


"entropy" is already a collective noun, so I think if you want to
pluralize it, you need to say "sources of entropy"


I am surprised that you are recommending HMAC-MD5, but I guess that's
how IS-IS rolls?
2017-04-10
04 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-04-10
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-04-10
04 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2017-04-10
04 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2017-04-07
04 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I have a series of comments -- they don't add up to a DISCUSS, but I think it is important that they are …
[Ballot comment]
I have a series of comments -- they don't add up to a DISCUSS, but I think it is important that they are solved before publication.

(1) In Section 3.3. (Router-Fingerprint TLV), the format presented doesn't actually show the "flags field", which is described in the text, but it shows its contents.  The length is defined as "the length of the value field", but the figure doesn't explicitly show the Value field.  It is probably obvious that the flags field + Router Fingerprint = Value, but it would be nice to be specific.

Suggestion: include the 1 octet "flags field" in the drawing -- if needed, then show the detail (where the S and A bits are) in the description of the field.


(2) What about the other bits in the Flag field, how should they be registered in the future (if needed)?  Please ask IANA to define a registry for them.

(3) Section 3.1. (IS-IS Default Configuration) mentions several TLVs that MUST NOT be used...and Section 3.3. (Router-Fingerprint TLV) says that this TLV MUST NOT be included in an LSP with a non-zero LSP number.  What should a receiving node do if any of those conditions are not true?

(4) s/3.4.3.  IS-IS System ID Duplication Detection and Resolution/3.4.3.  IS-IS System ID Duplication Detection

(5) I thought the point of this document was for use in "unmanaged deployments.  It allows IS-IS to be used without the need for any configuration by the user."  But Section 3.5. (Additional IS-IS TLVs Usage Guidelines) has recommendations for configuration options, including manually configured adjacencies (which should not be allowed according to Section 3.4.2. (Adjacency Formation)).  Isn't this against the stated reasons for this document?

(6) Authentication is one of those features that could be manually configured -- but the default is no authentication.  There's a higher-than-usual risk of a node listening on the network (probably a bigger problem for the user traffic), but also one that could listen to the Hellos and purposefully trigger the duplicate resolution mechanism to continuously run.  This risk should be highlighted in the Security Considerations because it is newly introduced here. [Robert Sparks pointed this risk out during his GenArt review.]
2017-04-07
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-04-07
04 Robert Sparks Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list.
2017-04-07
04 Alia Atlas Ballot has been issued
2017-04-07
04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-04-07
04 Alia Atlas Created "Approve" ballot
2017-04-07
04 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was changed
2017-04-06
04 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-04-05
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-04-05
04 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the TLV Codepoints Registry located at:

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

a single, new codepoint will be added to the registry as follows:

Type Description IIH LSP SNP Purge Reference
----------------------- ------------ --- --- --- ----- ---------------
[ TBD-at-Registration ] Router-Fingerprint Y Y N Y [ RFC-to-be]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator 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 Services Specialist
PTI
2017-03-30
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Radia Perlman.
2017-03-27
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2017-03-27
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2017-03-23
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shucheng LIU
2017-03-23
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shucheng LIU
2017-03-23
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2017-03-23
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman
2017-03-22
04 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-03-22
04 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, Hannes Gredler , hannes@gredler.at, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, akatlas@gmail.com, Hannes Gredler , hannes@gredler.at, isis-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (ISIS Auto-Configuration) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis)
to consider the following document:
- 'ISIS Auto-Configuration'
  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 2017-04-10. 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 specifies IS-IS auto-configuration mechanisms.  The key
  components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection
  and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS
  functions, and so are suitable for networks where plug-and-play
  configuration is expected.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf/ballot/


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




2017-03-22
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-04-13
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Last call was requested
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Last call announcement was changed
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Last call was requested
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Ballot approval text was generated
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was generated
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-03-22
04 Alia Atlas Last call announcement was generated
2017-03-16
04 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler
(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?  …
(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

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document specifies IS-IS auto-configuration mechanisms.  The key
components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection
and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS
functions, and so are suitable for networks where plug-and-play
configuration is expected.

Working Group Summary

Not much controversy. Throwing in ideas which thw authors graciously did pick up.

Document Quality

There are two independent implementations.
Not much interest from the main-stream router vendors.


Personnel

  Hannes Gredler is the Document Shepherd
  Alia Atlas is the Routing-AD

(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.

Have read through all iterations of the document and reviewed all the on-list exchanges of the draft.

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

no, the document looks good for producing a interoperable implementation.

(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? 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 concerns here. perhaps a question to IESG why do we as IETF not endorse more zero-conf work ?

(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, all the authors have confirmed that there are no known IPR claims.

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

no IPR disclosure has been filed

(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 support.

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

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

The document is ready for publication

(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.

(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 change to existing RFCs

(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).

The instructions to IANA are clear and complete.

(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.

no new IANA registries

(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
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler
(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?  …
(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?

Internet Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document specifies IS-IS auto-configuration mechanisms.  The key
components are IS-IS System ID self-generation, duplication detection
and duplication resolution.  These mechanisms provide limited IS-IS
functions, and so are suitable for networks where plug-and-play
configuration is expected.

Working Group Summary

Not much controversy. Throwing in ideas which thw authors graciously did pick up.

Document Quality

There are two independent implementations.
Not much interest from the main-stream router vendors.


Personnel

  Hannes Gredler is the Document Shepherd
  Alia Atlas is the Routing-AD

(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.

Have read through all iterations of the document and reviewed all the on-list exchanges of the draft.

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

no, the document looks good for producing a interoperable implementation.

(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? 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 concerns here. perhaps a question to IESG why do we as IETF not endorse more zero-conf work ?

(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, all the authors have confirmed that there are no known IPR claims.

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

no IPR disclosure has been filed

(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 support.

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

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

The document is ready for publication

(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.

(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 change to existing RFCs

(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).

The instructions to IANA are clear and complete.

(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.

no new IANA registries

(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
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler ship it !
2017-03-15
04 Hannes Gredler Changed document writeup
2017-02-07
04 Christian Hopps IPR poll completed no known IPR related to this draft by the authors.
2017-02-07
04 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2017-01-17
04 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-11-21
04 Bing Liu New version available: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04.txt
2016-11-21
04 (System) New version approved
2016-11-21
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Bing Liu" , "Ian Farrer" , "Les Ginsberg" , "Bruno Decraene" , "Mikael Abrahamsson"
2016-11-21
04 Bing Liu Uploaded new revision
2016-10-31
03 Ian Farrer New version available: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-03.txt
2016-10-31
03 (System) New version approved
2016-10-31
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Bing Liu" , "Ian Farrer" , "Les Ginsberg" , "Bruno Decraene" , "Mikael Abrahamsson"
2016-10-31
02 Ian Farrer Uploaded new revision
2016-07-20
02 Bing Liu New version available: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-02.txt
2016-06-01
01 Bing Liu New version available: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-01.txt
2016-03-01
00 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to "Hannes Gredler" <hannes@gredler.at>
2016-03-01
00 Christian Hopps Document shepherd changed to Hannes Gredler
2016-03-01
00 Christian Hopps Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-03-01
00 Christian Hopps Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-03-01
00 Christian Hopps This document now replaces draft-liu-isis-auto-conf instead of None
2015-11-29
00 Bing Liu New version available: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-00.txt