IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability
draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02

[Ballot comment]
A question about what the reference to transition means was raised in Robert Sparks' Gen-ART review. Robert’s question was good, and Les' answer was spot on.

What I’m wondering is whether it would be useful to add something to the document about your answer, Les? Or at the very least, a reference to Appendix A from Section 2. And if you add something about transition mechanisms, it could simply be “… transition mechanisms (such as configuration setting) …”.

[Ballot comment]
- I was surprised that this only updates one RFC. But if
that's felt to be sufficient, that's fine.

- Appendix A seems to imply that section 5 could claim that
this fixes a potential security issue, but it's fine that
the authors prefer brevity in section 5 (in this case:-)

[Ballot comment]
A security considerations section that says "None." is pretty much the same as not having the section. I assume that means people thought about it, and reached the conclusion this was security neutral. It might be helpful to at least briefly describe that thought process.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: , , isis-chairs@ietf.org, , isis-wg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability) 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 Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability'
  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 2015-10-30. 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


  Existing specifications as regards route preference are not explicit
  when applied to IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability Type/Length/Value
  (TLVs).  There are also inconsistencies in the definition of how the
  up/down bit applies to route preference when the prefix advertisement
  appears in Level 2 Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs).  This
  document addresses these issues.





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

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


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

    (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:

Clarify differences found in route preferences between various isis RFCs.

    Working Group Summary:

Initial objections to changes to IPv6 to bring in-line with other
drafts were overcome.

    Document Quality:

Implementations exist as written and others are expected to be
modified to work around issues identified and fixed by clarifications.

    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.

Reviewed multiple times by the shepherd.

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

Well reviewed.

    (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 broader review required.

    (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?

No new IPR related to clarification document.

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

No see above.

    (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.

    (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.

No formal review required.

    (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).

None.

    (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.

None.