IS-IS Extended Sequence Number TLV
draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-07-22
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-07-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-07-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-05-12
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-05-11
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-05-10
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-05-08
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-05-08
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-05-08
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-05-08
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-05-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-05-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2015-05-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-05-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-04-27
|
06 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
2015-04-23
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-04-23
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-04-22
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-22
|
06 | Uma Chunduri | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-04-22
|
06 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-06.txt |
2015-04-21
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the SecDir review: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05560.html |
2015-04-21
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-04-21
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-04-21
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - last para of section 5 (before 5.1) could do with a bit of a re-write, it's not very clear. - section 7: … [Ballot comment] - last para of section 5 (before 5.1) could do with a bit of a re-write, it's not very clear. - section 7: When this mechanism is used, can an attacker who can delete or re-order packets (which is v. similar to one who can replay packets) cause any new bad outcomes due to the verification of the out-of-order arrival? (Sorry, I don't know IS-IS enough to know the answer there, it's probably obvious.) If so, then maybe that argues that one ought note that this doesn't address such threats (but that this is still I guess worthwhile). |
2015-04-21
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-04-21
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -- Section 5, third paragraph: Can you offer any guidance on timeliness? At least an order of magnitude? . Nits: -- Please expand … [Ballot comment] -- Section 5, third paragraph: Can you offer any guidance on timeliness? At least an order of magnitude? . Nits: -- Please expand IS-IS on first mention in the body, even though you already did in the abstract. -- Section 5, 2nd paragraph: "The implementation SHOULD also allow operators to control the configuration of ’send’ and/or ’verify’ the feature of IS-IS PDUs for the links and for the node." I don't understand the sentence |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] With respect to keeping the ESSN increasing, you mention cold-starting the router... but what about when the router hardware is replaced? The mechanism … [Ballot comment] With respect to keeping the ESSN increasing, you mention cold-starting the router... but what about when the router hardware is replaced? The mechanism outlined in Section 10.1 should cover things there (just make sure that the old and new routers both have the time set correctly), but the mechanism in 10.2 won't. Does this matter? Or will the new router always have new keys, so it doesn't matter (I guess the last sentence in 10.2 covers that)? As long as you call Sections 10 and 11 "Appendix", the RFC Editor will move them to the end and re-number them. Please check in AUTH48 to be sure the forward references to Section 10 (in Sections 3 and 3.1) are correct. Or perhaps just don't call those sections appendices. It seems to me that they're useful enough and brief enough to be part of the document main. |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-04-20
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-04-19
|
05 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-04-17
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Just a small formatting nit: Sections 10 and 11 seem to be intended as appendixes, but show up as sections. |
2015-04-17
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-04-16
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-04-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-04-14
|
05 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-23 |
2015-04-14
|
05 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-04-14
|
05 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2015-04-14
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-04-14
|
05 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-14
|
05 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-04-11
|
05 | Christer Holmberg | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg. |
2015-04-08
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-04-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-04-07
|
05 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-05.txt |
2015-04-02
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Adam Montville. |
2015-03-28
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Nevil Brownlee. |
2015-03-21
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nevil Brownlee |
2015-03-21
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Nevil Brownlee |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn' |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Adam Montville |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IS-IS Extended Sequence number TLV) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IS-IS Extended Sequence number TLV) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis) to consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Extended Sequence number TLV' 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 2015-04-08. 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 defines Extended Sequence number TLV to protect Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) PDUs from replay attacks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Last call to go until April 8 due to overlap with meeting |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-03-18
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv.shepherd@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org from "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines Extended Sequence number TLV to protect Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) PDUs from replay attacks. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was initial resistance by some members of the WG with regard to the need for the new mechanism. Consensus over the need was achieved, while a technical objection remained over the inclusion of the extended sequence number TLV in LSP PDUs as they already contain a sequence number. The new sequence number TLV was removed from the LSP which dealt with the technical objection. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? No known implementations currently exist. One vendor has expressed interest in implementing the mechanism for use in DC/TRILL deployments. Les Ginsberg did multiple in-depth reviews of the document with comments which were incorporated, and is acknowledged in the document. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? DS: 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. Document was reviewed by the Document Shepherd multiple times, including a final pass for the writeup. (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. (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. None. (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. No. (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? Good consensus by the active members 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. There are a couple unused references that presumably can be removed by the editor. (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). The documents allocation of a single code-point for the newly introduced TLV is correct. The code-point needs to be allocated. (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. N/A. (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. |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-02-06
|
04 | Christian Hopps | Changed document writeup |
2015-01-30
|
04 | Christian Hopps | Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> |
2015-01-30
|
04 | Christian Hopps | Document shepherd changed to Christian Hopps |
2015-01-06
|
04 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-04.txt |
2014-07-04
|
03 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-03.txt |
2014-02-13
|
02 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-02.txt |
2014-01-24
|
01 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-01.txt |
2013-12-11
|
00 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-06-10
|
00 | Uma Chunduri | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-extended-sequence-no-tlv-00.txt |