Skip to main content

IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-25

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-11-12
25 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2019-08-27
25 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2019-08-26
25 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Telechat review by OPSDIR to Carlos Martínez was marked no-response
2019-08-20
25 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2019-08-19
25 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2019-06-22
25 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Tim Polk was marked no-response
2019-06-11
25 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-06-11
25 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2019-06-10
25 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-06-06
25 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2019-06-06
25 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-06-06
25 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-06-05
25 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-06-05
25 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-06-05
25 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2019-06-05
25 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-06-05
25 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-06-05
25 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2019-06-05
25 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thanks for explaining the issues I noted in the DISCUSS.
2019-06-05
25 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-05-19
25 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-05-19
25 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-05-19
25 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-25.txt
2019-05-19
25 (System) New version approved
2019-05-19
25 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi
2019-05-19
25 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2019-05-16
24 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2019-05-16
24 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. Even if I do care about segment routing, and after a quick read …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. Even if I do care about segment routing, and after a quick read of the document, I am in the same boat as Warren Kumari for available time: I am balloting NoObj in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem / I have no cycles" sense.


== COMMENT ==

-- Section 2.4.4.1.  --

Out of curiosity, this section seems to imply that a host always has a /128 prefix in IPv6. There are other use case, notably RFC 8273, where a host has a /64. Does it change anything in this document?

== NITS ==

-- introduction --

Suggest to expand IGP & ECMP.

-- section 2.4.6 ---

Please follow RFC 5952 and use lower case for IPv6 addresses.
2019-05-16
24 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2019-05-16
24 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2019-05-15
24 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
— Section 4.4 —
As you’re defining a new Expert Review registry, it would help to include some brief guidance for the designated …
[Ballot comment]
— Section 4.4 —
As you’re defining a new Expert Review registry, it would help to include some brief guidance for the designated expert (see RFC 8126).
2019-05-15
24 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2019-05-15
24 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Due to lack of time this week I was only able to review the first half of the document, and so am balloting …
[Ballot comment]
Due to lack of time this week I was only able to review the first half of the document, and so am balloting NoObj in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem / I have no cycles" sense.
2019-05-15
24 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-05-15
24 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-05-15
24 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot discuss]
I need a bit of help understanding how to read the Security Considerations text – threats are identified but how they are mitigated …
[Ballot discuss]
I need a bit of help understanding how to read the Security Considerations text – threats are identified but how they are mitigated seems implicit.  The text, “In general the same types of attacks … However, the latter will be more difficult to detect …”, alludes to a similar threat without a reference and seems to suggest it will be worse in the deployed environment of this extension.

The next paragraph, “Existing security extensions … [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] apply …” states that [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] also apply.  What does apply mean here – should they be used?  Do they mitigate what’s described in the previous paragraph?
2019-05-15
24 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Section 2.3.  Typo.  s/advertsied/advertised/
2019-05-15
24 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2019-05-14
24 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]

Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a small
number of minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.4:

>  o  …
[Ballot comment]

Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a small
number of minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.4:

>  o  1 octet of RESERVED

For the sake of making this byte potentially usable in the future, consider
adding text specifying something like "MUST be set to 0 on transmission,
and MUST be ignored on reception."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.4.6:

>  10.1.1/24, Prefix-SID: Index 51
>  10.1.2/24, Prefix-SID: Index 52
>  10.1.3/24, Prefix-SID: Index 53
>  10.1.4/24, Prefix-SID: Index 54
>  10.1.5/24, Prefix-SID: Index 55
>  10.1.6/24, Prefix-SID: Index 56
>  10.1.7/24, Prefix-SID: Index 57

Please change these addresses to ranges reserved by IANA for
documentation purposes rather than those reserved for private use.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§2.4.6:

>  2001:DB8:1/48, Prefix-SID: Index 151
>  2001:DB8:2/48, Prefix-SID: Index 152
>  2001:DB8:3/48, Prefix-SID: Index 153
>  2001:DB8:4/48, Prefix-SID: Index 154

Please change these IPv6 addresses to use lowercase hex digits.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-4.3
2019-05-14
24 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-05-14
24 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-05-14
24 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-05-14
24 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
A few comments/questions:

1) For both the Prefix Segment Identifier and the Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV it is not fully clear to me …
[Ballot comment]
A few comments/questions:

1) For both the Prefix Segment Identifier and the Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV it is not fully clear to me what the value field is used for when the V-Flag is set. Can you further elaborate this in the draft or provide a respective pointer?

2) The F-Flag in Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV and SID/Label Binding TLV is only one bit. I'm not expecting a new version of IP any time soon, however, maybe completely different address families could be useful as well. Not sure if only 1 bit is future-proof...?

3) Would it make sense to also discuss any risk of leaking information (e.g. about the network topology) in the security consideration section?
2019-05-14
24 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-05-13
24 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-05-13
24 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2019-05-11
24 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-05-08
24 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2019-05-08
24 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2019-05-04
24 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ White.
2019-04-30
24 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2019-04-26
24 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-05-16
2019-04-26
24 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2019-04-26
24 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2019-04-26
24 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-04-26
24 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2019-04-26
24 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2019-04-17
24 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-04-17
24 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24.txt
2019-04-17
24 (System) New version approved
2019-04-17
24 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi
2019-04-17
24 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2019-04-17
23 Erik Kline Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Erik Kline. Sent review to list.
2019-04-17
23 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2019-04-16
23 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

First, in the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLVs) registry on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

the following temporary registrations will be made permanent and their references set to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Type: 31
Description: Adjacency Segment Identifier
TLV 22: y
TLV 23: y
TLV 25: n
TLV 141: y
TLV 222: y
TLV 223: y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.2.1)

Type: 32
Description: LAN Adjacency Segment Identifier
TLV 22: y
TLV 23: y
TLV 25: n
TLV 141: y
TLV 222: y
TLV 223: y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.2.2)

Second, in the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 (Extended IP reachability, MT IP. Reach, IPv6 IP. Reach, and MT IPv6 IP. Reach TLVs) registry also on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

the following temporary registration will be made permanent and its reference set to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Type: 3
Description: Prefix Segment Identifier
TLV 135: y
TLV 235: y
TLV 236: y
TLV 237: y
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.1)

Third, in the Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 (IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV) registry also on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

the following temporary registrations will be made permanent and their references set to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Type: 2
Description: Segment Routing Capability
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 3.1)

Type: 19
Description: Segment Routing Algorithm
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 3.2)

Type: 22
Description: Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 3.3)

Type: 24
Description: Segment Routing Mapping Server Preference (SRMS Preference)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 3.4)

Fourth, in the TLV Codepoints registry also on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

the following temporary registrations will be made permanent and their references set to [ RFC-to-be ]:

Value: 149
Name: Segment Identifier / Label Binding
IIH: n
LSP: y
SNP: n
Purge: n
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.4)

Value: 150
name: Multi-Topology Segment Identifier / Label Binding
IIH: n
LSP: y
SNP: n
Purge: n
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.5)

Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the Sub-TLVs for TLV 149 and 150 registry. The new registry is to be located on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

The new registry is to be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC 8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type: 1
Description: SID/Label
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.4.5)

Type: 3
Description: Prefix-SID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] (Section 2.1)

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2019-04-16
23 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2019-04-04
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline
2019-04-04
23 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Erik Kline
2019-04-04
23 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White
2019-04-04
23 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White
2019-04-04
23 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk
2019-04-04
23 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tim Polk
2019-04-03
23 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2019-04-03
23 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org, Uma Chunduri , uma.chunduri@huawei.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-17):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions@ietf.org, Uma Chunduri , uma.chunduri@huawei.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, Christian Hopps , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing'
  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 2019-04-17. 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


  Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
  paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
  topological sub-paths, called "segments".  These segments are
  advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).

  This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
  introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/ballot/

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2232/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2297/





2019-04-03
23 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2019-04-03
23 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2019-04-03
23 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2019-04-03
23 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2019-04-03
23 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2019-04-03
23 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-04-03
23 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2019-03-28
23 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-03-28
23 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23.txt
2019-03-28
23 (System) New version approved
2019-03-28
23 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi
2019-03-28
23 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2019-03-20
22 Alvaro Retana === AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/trLsjLG0hE5hBgY2xn9l6zJHPv0
2019-03-20
22 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2019-03-01
22 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2019-03-01
22 Alvaro Retana
Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com …
Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
2018-12-13
22 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-22.txt
2018-12-13
22 (System) New version approved
2018-12-13
22 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi
2018-12-13
22 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-12-03
21 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-21.txt
2018-12-03
21 (System) New version approved
2018-12-03
21 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi
2018-12-03
21 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-11-11
20 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Russ White.
2018-11-09
20 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White
2018-11-09
20 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White
2018-11-08
20 Acee Lindem
(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?

The Intended Status is 'Proposed Standard'. 
The type of RFC is properly indicated in the title page header.

(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:

    This document describes the IS-IS extensions for segment routing for various IGP segment identifiers laid out in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
    All the extensions defined are muti-topology aware and can support both IPv4 and IPv6 address families for MPLS data plane.
    This also describes various router capabilities needed for these SR extensions.
 
Working Group Summary
This draft has been thoroughly discussed in the WG at various stages of the document progression.
The draft adoption and progress has received full support from the WG.

All major comments have been addressed.  The draft is ready for publication.
Few comments are sent to the list and those are worked out by co-authors.
Draft version 17 addresses shepherd's comments.

Document Quality

Proposed extensions have been implemented by 4 vendors-os/implementations.

Some of the interoperability details are publicly available from EANTC.

Personnel
Uma Chunduri is the Document Shepherd.
Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(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.

The draft has been thoroughly reviewed by the Shepherd.
Minor comments are sent to the list and are those are addressed by co-authors.  Published,  version 17 reflect the changes.

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

No concerns.

(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.

(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.  Every author has confirmed.
  All contributors to this document too responded.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Following 2 IPRs have been declared.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2297/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2232/


Yes.  The authors have been asked on the WG list about IPR.  There haven't been any concerns raised on the list.



(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? 

The draft adoption and progress had received full support from the WG.
 
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 some warnings form idnits but these are of no consequence.
From idnits:
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '100' on line 1009
    'SRGB = [100, 199]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '199' on line 1009
    'SRGB = [100, 199]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1000' on line 1010
    '[1000, 1099]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1099' on line 1010
    '[1000, 1099]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '500' on line 1011
    '[500, 599]...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '599' on line 1011
    '[500, 599]...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'

Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 9 comments (--).

Comments indicated by idnit tool is not a problem as tool is assuming these are references.
Idnits also does not allow that a non-RFC document can be a normative reference – but clearly ISO 10589 is a normative reference.
Hence none of them is an issue.

These documents have 8 front page authors and given the lengths and involvement of the authors an exception for the 5 authors rule can be made.
However, authors are still discussing among them on this point (up to responsible AD). See discussion below:

Jeff and Stephane have graciously agreed to be moved to the Contributors section (thank you)!

This leaves us with 6 authors - all of whom have made significant contributions at various stages of the draft work.
We would like to proceed with these 6 authors.

Below is a short summary of each author's contributions (including Jeff and Stephane):

. Stefano - lead editor for the first four years of the draft
. Les - lead editor for the past year. Many in depth reviews during the prior years
. Bruno - Many useful comments during many in depth reviews.
. Hannes - contributed significant amount of text
. Ahmed - many in depth reviews w input based on early prototypes of the functionality
. Clarence - as architect for SR he insured that text for this document - which was the first document defining protocol extensions for SR - remained consistent w the SR architecture

Also:
. Stephane - many in depth reviews
. Jeff - many in depth reviews

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

Parameters defined in this document should be configured from respective IGP SR yang model. Base SR yang model (draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang) is also relevant to this document and it is quite stable.
No need for such formal review.


(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 (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.

The state of other documents remains unchanged.

(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).

    IS-IS Segment Routing extensions required allocation of a number of
    code points from the IS-IS TLV code point registry. These code
    points were pre-allocated through IANA early allocation as
    described in RFC 7120.

(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
2018-11-08
20 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2018-11-08
20 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2018-11-08
20 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-11-08
20 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-11-08
20 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-20.txt
2018-11-08
20 (System) New version approved
2018-11-08
20 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2018-11-08
20 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-11-08
19 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2018-11-08
19 Acee Lindem Changed document writeup
2018-11-08
19 Acee Lindem Changed document writeup
2018-07-22
19 Uma Chunduri Changed document writeup
2018-07-19
19 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-19.txt
2018-07-19
19 (System) New version approved
2018-07-19
19 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2018-07-19
19 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-06-20
18 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-18.txt
2018-06-20
18 (System) New version approved
2018-06-20
18 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2018-06-20
18 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-06-15
17 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-17.txt
2018-06-15
17 (System) New version approved
2018-06-15
17 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2018-06-15
17 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-06-15
16 Uma Chunduri Changed document writeup
2018-05-14
16 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> from "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>
2018-05-14
16 Christian Hopps Document shepherd changed to Uma Chunduri
2018-05-14
16 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2018-04-23
16 Christian Hopps Changes to the document since the initial WGLC issuing another WGLC.
2018-04-19
16 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-16.txt
2018-04-19
16 (System) New version approved
2018-04-19
16 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2018-04-19
16 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2018-02-25
15 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> from "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>
2018-02-25
15 Christian Hopps Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from IS-IS for IP Internets (ISIS)
2017-12-19
15 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-15.txt
2017-12-19
15 (System) New version approved
2017-12-19
15 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Les Ginsberg , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2017-12-19
15 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2017-12-15
14 Les Ginsberg New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-14.txt
2017-12-15
14 (System) New version approved
2017-12-15
14 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Clarence Filsfils , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene , Jeff Tantsura , Hannes Gredler , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Stephane Litkowski
2017-12-15
14 Les Ginsberg Uploaded new revision
2017-06-19
13 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-13.txt
2017-06-19
13 (System) New version approved
2017-06-19
13 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski
2017-06-19
13 Stefano Previdi Uploaded new revision
2017-04-28
12 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-12.txt
2017-04-28
12 (System) New version approved
2017-04-28
12 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski
2017-04-28
12 Stefano Previdi Uploaded new revision
2017-04-03
11 Christian Hopps IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2017-03-07
11 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-11.txt
2017-03-07
11 (System) New version approved
2017-03-07
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski
2017-03-07
11 Stefano Previdi Uploaded new revision
2017-02-27
10 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-10.txt
2017-02-27
10 (System) New version approved
2017-02-27
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Stefano Previdi , Ahmed Bashandy , isis-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler , Bruno Decraene , " jefftant@gmail.com" , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski
2017-02-27
10 Stefano Previdi Uploaded new revision
2016-10-30
09 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-09.txt
2016-10-30
09 (System) New version approved
2016-10-30
08 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Hannes Gredler" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Bruno Decraene" , "Stefano Previdi" , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Hannes Gredler" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Bruno Decraene" , "Stefano Previdi" , " jefftant@gmail.com" , "Ahmed Bashandy"
2016-10-30
08 Stefano Previdi Uploaded new revision
2016-10-13
08 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-08.txt
2016-10-13
08 (System) New version approved
2016-10-13
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Jeff Tantsura" , "Hannes Gredler" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Bruno Decraene" , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: isis-chairs@ietf.org, "Jeff Tantsura" , "Hannes Gredler" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Bruno Decraene" , "Stefano Previdi" , "Ahmed Bashandy"
2016-10-13
07 Stefano Previdi Uploaded new revision
2016-06-13
07 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-07.txt
2016-03-01
06 Christian Hopps This document now replaces draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions instead of None
2016-03-01
06 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>
2016-03-01
06 Christian Hopps Document shepherd changed to Christian Hopps
2015-12-14
06 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06.txt
2015-06-30
05 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05.txt
2015-05-05
04 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-04.txt
2014-10-25
03 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-03.txt
2014-06-18
02 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-02.txt
2014-06-06
01 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-01.txt
2014-04-11
00 Hannes Gredler Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2014-04-11
00 Hannes Gredler Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-04-11
00 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-00.txt