Skip to main content

IS-IS Flood Reflection
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-04-04
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2023-03-06
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2023-01-31
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2022-12-19
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2022-12-19
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2022-12-19
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2022-12-16
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2022-12-16
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2022-12-13
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2022-12-06
12 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2022-12-06
12 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2022-12-06
12 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2022-12-06
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2022-12-06
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2022-12-06
12 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2022-12-06
12 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2022-12-06
12 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2022-12-06
12 John Scudder IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2022-12-05
12 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12.txt
2022-12-05
12 Tony Przygienda New version approved
2022-12-05
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Chris Bowers , Russ White , Tony Przygienda , Yiu Lee , lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2022-12-05
12 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2022-12-03
11 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2022-12-01
11 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2022-12-01
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2022-12-01
11 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-12-01
11 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work put into this.  I just have some minor editorial things to consider.

Section 4.1 contains this text:

  The …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work put into this.  I just have some minor editorial things to consider.

Section 4.1 contains this text:

  The Flood Reflection TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once in an IIH.
  A router receiving one or more Flood Reflection TLVs in the same IIH
  MUST use the values in the first TLV and it SHOULD log such
  violations subject to rate limiting.

There are several other instances of this pattern in later sections.  In each case I'm wondering why an implementer might choose to disregard the SHOULD NOT.  Is there ever a legitimate reason to do so?  If so, could we include an example?  If not, should this simply be a MUST?  Several of the other SHOULDs leave me wondering the same thing.

Thanks for a good IANA Considerations section.

Section 2 defines "Tunnel Endpoint" and "Hot-Potato Routing", but those terms don't appear anywhere in the document.
2022-12-01
11 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-11-30
11 Andrew Alston [Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document, I found it clear and well-written.  Thanks to the shepherd for the explanation regarding the experimental track.
2022-11-30
11 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2022-11-30
11 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
The introduction was extremely clear and useful; thank you.

This document could use some text about what Experiment is being conducted, success criteria, …
[Ballot comment]
The introduction was extremely clear and useful; thank you.

This document could use some text about what Experiment is being conducted, success criteria, etc.
2022-11-30
11 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2022-11-29
11 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, I found it pretty clear and easy to read (although, I skipped the TLV specifications).

A couple of …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, I found it pretty clear and easy to read (although, I skipped the TLV specifications).

A couple of minor comments/nits that may help improve the doc:

Minor level comments:                                                                             
                                                                                                 
(1) p 18, sec 9.  Security Considerations                                                         
                                                                                                 
  subversion of the IS-IS level 2 information.  Therefore, at tunnel                             
  level steps should be taken to prevent such injection.                                         
                                                                                                 
I didn't find the term "tunnel level" to be particularly clear, either here, or below.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                 
Nit level comments:                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                           
(2) p 8, sec 3.  Further Details                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                           
  One possible solution to this problem is to expose additional                                                                                                                           
  topology information into the L2 flooding domains.  In the example                                                                                                                       
  network given, links from router 01 to router 02 can be exposed into                                                                                                                     
  L2 even when 01 and 02 are participating in flood reflection.  This
  information would allow the L2 nodes to build 'shortcuts' when the L2
  flood reflected part of the topology looks more expensive to cross
  distance wise.

Should 01 and 02 be R1 and R2 respectively?

Regards,
Rob
2022-11-29
11 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-11-28
11 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-11-21
11 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2022-11-17
11 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Rich Salz for the SECDIR review.

** Section 4.1
  The Flood Reflection TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Rich Salz for the SECDIR review.

** Section 4.1
  The Flood Reflection TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once in an IIH.

Why isn’t the guidance here “MUST NOT” appear since any subsequent, duplicate Flood Reflection TLVs are ignored?

Same comment on the discovery Sub-TLV in Section 4.2, and Section 4.4

** Section 4.3
      Carries encapsulation type and
      further attributes necessary for tunnel establishment as defined
      in [RFC9012].  The Protocol Type sub-TLV as defined in [RFC9012]
      MAY be included.

The first sentence suggests that the semantics of this field are defined by RFC9012.  The second sentence suggests that it is optional to support the Protocol Type sub-TLV per Section 3.4.1 of RFC9012.  This is confusing to me because RFC9012 supports a number of sub-TLVs to include the Protocol Type one explicitly called out.  Is that the only sub-TLV supported for use?

Editorial
** Section 1.  Typo. s/Maintainance/Maintenance/

** Section 1.  Editorial.  Consider using a less colloquial phrase than “Deployment-wise”.

** Section 4.2.  Editorial.  s/one ore more/one or more/
2022-11-17
11 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-10-23
11 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-12-01
2022-10-22
11 John Scudder Ballot has been issued
2022-10-22
11 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-10-22
11 John Scudder Created "Approve" ballot
2022-10-22
11 John Scudder IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
2022-10-22
11 John Scudder Ballot writeup was changed
2022-10-22
11 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-10-22
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-10-22
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2022-10-22
11 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-11.txt
2022-10-22
11 Tony Przygienda New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2022-10-22
11 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2022-10-10
10 John Scudder
Hi Authors,

The IETF last call has concluded. I don't see any showstoppers but there were a few review comments that seem like they should …
Hi Authors,

The IETF last call has concluded. I don't see any showstoppers but there were a few review comments that seem like they should be addressed in a new revision. I'll wait for a revision before scheduling this for IESG review.

Thanks,

--John
2022-10-10
10 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Tony Przygienda, Russ White, Yiu Lee, Chris Bowers, Alankar Sharma (IESG state changed)
2022-10-10
10 John Scudder IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2022-10-10
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-10-07
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-10-07
10 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10. 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-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10. 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 four actions which we must complete.

First, in the IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints registry on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

the early registration for

Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge
----- --------------------------------- --- --- --- -----
161 Flood Reflection y n n n

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the IS-IS Sub-TLVs for 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 early registration for:

Type Description
---- -------------------------
161 Flood Reflection Discovery

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Third, a new registry is to be created called the Sub-sub TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLV. The new registry will be located on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

The range of values in the new registry is 0-255. The registration procedure for the new registry is Expert Review as defined in RFC8126. There is a single, initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Type: 161
Description: Flood Reflection Discovery Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information registry also on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at:

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

the early registration for:

Type Description 22 23 25 141 222 223
---- -------------------------------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
161 Flood Reflector Adjacency y y n y y y

will be made permanent and its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2022-10-06
10 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2022-10-03
10 Rich Salz Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Rich Salz. Sent review to list.
2022-09-29
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rich Salz
2022-09-29
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rich Salz
2022-09-29
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2022-09-29
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2022-09-28
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2022-09-28
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2022-09-26
10 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-09-26
10 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-10-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection@ietf.org, jgs@juniper.net, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IS-IS Flood Reflection) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Flood Reflection'
  as Experimental RFC

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-10. 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 describes a backward-compatible, optional IS-IS
  extension that allows the creation of IS-IS flood reflection
  topologies.  Flood reflection permits topologies in which L1 areas
  provide transit forwarding for L2 using all available L1 nodes
  internally.  It accomplishes this by creating L2 flood reflection
  adjacencies within each L1 area.  Those adjacencies are used to flood
  L2 LSPDUs and are used in the L2 SPF computation.  However, they are
  not ordinarily utilized for forwarding within the flood reflection
  cluster.  This arrangement gives the L2 topology significantly better
  scaling properties than traditionally used flat designs.  As an
  additional benefit, only those routers directly participating in
  flood reflection are required to support the feature.  This allows
  for incremental deployment of scalable L1 transit areas in an
  existing, previously flat network design, without the necessity of
  upgrading all routers in the network.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4186/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5807/





2022-09-26
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-09-26
10 John Scudder Last call was requested
2022-09-26
10 John Scudder Last call announcement was generated
2022-09-26
10 John Scudder Ballot approval text was generated
2022-09-26
10 John Scudder Ballot writeup was generated
2022-09-26
10 John Scudder IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-09-26
10 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-09-26
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-09-26
10 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10.txt
2022-09-26
10 Tony Przygienda New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2022-09-26
10 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2022-09-26
09 John Scudder
Please update draft to add normative references to [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. I also unicast a few remaining nits you could cover at …
Please update draft to add normative references to [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. I also unicast a few remaining nits you could cover at the same time.
2022-09-26
09 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Tony Przygienda, Russ White, Yiu Lee, Chris Bowers, Alankar Sharma (IESG state changed)
2022-09-26
09 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-09-25
09 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-09-25
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-09-25
09 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-09.txt
2022-09-25
09 Tony Przygienda New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2022-09-25
09 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2022-09-20
08 John Scudder See the AD review sent to the WG mailing list.
2022-09-20
08 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder, Tony Przygienda, Russ White, Yiu Lee, Chris Bowers, Alankar Sharma (IESG state changed)
2022-09-20
08 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-09-20
08 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-08.txt
2022-09-20
08 Tony Przygienda New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2022-09-20
08 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2022-09-12
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection
2022-08-23
07 (System) Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed)
2022-08-23
07 John Scudder IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-01-20
07 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 Proposed Standard.

Experimental. This document level is experimental due to the fact that we have multiple proposed solutions solving the problem reducing the overhead for using level-1 for level-2 transit in a data center.

(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 provides extensions to IS-IS to support flooding reflection of IS-IS updates in a level-1 area used for level-2 transit. This reduces the requirement for a full mesh of adjacencies between Area Border Routers (ABRs) and allows the flooding reflection to be done by the server which doesn't necessarily participate in the data plane. The document also describes bbut tunneled and non-tunneled transit in the level-1 area.

Working Group Summary:

There is stong support among those reviewing the document. However, there was at least one WG participant who thought the WG would select one of the alternatives among those proposed rather than advancing experimental solutions with sufficent momentum.

Document Quality:

The document is of high quality although at least WG member believed the solution was too complex.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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 document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and comments required to for complete specification.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

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

Of course, one would always wish for more reviews. IS-IS implementors have reviewed and Michael Richardson provided a very good Routing Directorate review.

(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.

Yes.

(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?

There is support for publication and minimal objection. The Document Shepherd believes a good part of the objection stems from a misunderstanding of Experimental status.

(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.

No nits other than the Copyright date needs to be updated to 2022.

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

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been reviewed by the Document Shepherd and IS-IS Designated Experts prior to early allocation.

(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.

The IS-IS allocations of TLV and sub-TLVs come from existing 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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-01-20
07 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-01-16
07 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 Proposed Standard.

Experimental. This document level is experimental due to the fact that we have multiple proposed solutions solving the problem reducing the overhead for using level-1 for level-2 transit in a data center.

(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 provides extensions to IS-IS to support flooding reflection of IS-IS updates in a level-1 area used for level-2 transit. This reduces the requirement for a full mesh of adjacencies between Area Border Routers (ABRs) and allows the flooding reflection to be done by the server which doesn't necessarily participate in the data plane. The document also describes bbut tunneled and non-tunneled transit in the level-1 area.

Working Group Summary:

There is stong support among those reviewing the document. However, there was at least one WG participant who thought the WG would select one of the alternatives among those proposed rather than advancing experimental solutions with sufficent momentum.

Document Quality:

The document is of high quality although at least WG member believed the solution was too complex.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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 document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and comments required to for complete specification.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

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

Of course, one would always wish for more reviews. IS-IS implementors have reviewed and Michael Richardson provided a very good Routing Directorate review.

(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.

Yes.

(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?

There is support for publication and minimal objection. The Document Shepherd believes a good part of the objection stems from a misunderstanding of Experimental status.

(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.

No nits other than the Copyright date needs to be updated to 2022.

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

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been reviewed by the Document Shepherd and IS-IS Designated Experts prior to early allocation.

(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.

The IS-IS allocations of TLV and sub-TLVs come from existing 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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2022-01-16
07 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 Proposed Standard.

Experimental. This document level is experimental due to the fact that we have multiple proposed solutions solving the problem reducing the overhead for using level-1 for level-2 transit in a data center.

(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 provides extensions to IS-IS to support flooding reflection of IS-IS updates in a level-1 area used for level-2 transit. This reduces the requirement for a full mesh of adjacencies between Area Border Routers (ABRs) and allows the flooding reflection to be done by the server which doesn't necessarily participate in the data plane. The document also describes bbut tunneled and non-tunneled transit in the level-1 area.

Working Group Summary:

There is stong support among those reviewing the document. However, there was at least one WG participant who thought the WG would select one of the alternatives among those proposed rather than advancing experimental solutions with sufficent momentum.

Document Quality:

The document is of high quality although at least WG member believed the solution was too complex.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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 document shepherd reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and comments required to for complete specification.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

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

Of course, one would always wish for more reviews. IS-IS implementors have reviewed and Michael Richardson provided a very good Routing Directorate review.

(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.

Yes.

(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?

There is support for publication and minimal objection. The Document Shepherd believes a good part of the objection stems from a misunderstanding of Experimental status.

(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.

No nits other than the Copyright date needs to be updated to 2022.

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

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(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 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and have been reviewed by the Document Shepherd and IS-IS Designated Experts prior to early allocation.

(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.

The IS-IS allocations of TLV and sub-TLVs come from existing 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, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-12-09
07 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-07.txt
2021-12-09
07 (System) New version approved
2021-12-09
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Chris Bowers , Russ White , Tony Przygienda , Yiu Lee , lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-12-09
07 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-11-26
06 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-06.txt
2021-11-26
06 (System) New version approved
2021-11-26
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Chris Bowers , Russ White , Tony Przygienda , Yiu Lee , lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-11-26
06 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-11-25
05 Michael Richardson Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Michael Richardson. Sent review to list.
2021-11-25
05 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson
2021-11-25
05 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Michael Richardson
2021-11-22
05 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-11-22
05 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-05.txt
2021-11-22
05 (System) New version approved
2021-11-22
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Chris Bowers , Russ White , Tony Przygienda , Yiu Lee , lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-11-22
05 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-11-22
04 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-10-21
04 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-04.txt
2021-10-21
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2021-10-21
04 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-07-11
03 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-03.txt
2021-07-11
03 (System) New version approved
2021-07-11
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alankar Sharma , Chris Bowers , Russ White , Tony Przygienda , Yiu Lee , lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2021-07-11
03 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2021-02-17
02 Christian Hopps Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2021-01-18
02 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-02.txt
2021-01-18
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2021-01-18
02 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2020-11-25
01 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to acee@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2020-11-25
01 Christian Hopps Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2020-07-27
01 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-01.txt
2020-07-27
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tony Przygienda)
2020-07-27
01 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision
2020-07-06
00 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-lsr-isis-flood-reflection instead of None
2020-07-06
00 Tony Przygienda New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-00.txt
2020-07-06
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-07-06
00 Tony Przygienda Set submitter to "Tony Przygienda ", replaces to draft-lsr-isis-flood-reflection and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2020-07-06
00 Tony Przygienda Uploaded new revision