OSPF Two-Part Metric
draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-10

[Ballot comment]
Sorry for being dense, but:

3.2.  Advertising Network-to-Router Metric in OSPFv2

  For OSPFv2, the Network-to-Router metric is encoded in an OSPF
  Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV [RFC7684], defined in this document as the
  Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.  The type of the Sub-TLV is TBD2.
  The length of the Sub-TLV is 4 (for the value part only).  The value
  part of the Sub-TLV is defined as follows:

      0                  1                  2                  3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      MT      |        0      |          MT  metric          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I don't believe the document explains what are valid values of the MT field. Help?

[Ballot comment]

abstract: the text doesn't really explain anything to me.  But
then I'm not familiar with OSPF so maybe it's obvious to
someone who is.

intro: expanding LSA, VPLS etc on 1st use would be better.

3.1, 2nd bullet: the text here was very unclear to me

(All that said, the satellite/mobile ground station example
does enough to ensure that the overall document is clear
so the above are nitty nits:-)

[Ballot comment]
Two quick questions:

1) Why does this doc update 2328 and 5340? I would assume an TLV extension does not need to update the base protocol.

2) Why is the OSPFv3 extension described in a separate document?

(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?

    A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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:

  Technical Summary:

  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol,
  to represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts: the
  metric from a router to the network, and the metric from the network
  to the router.  The router to router metric would be the sum of the
  two.

  Working Group Summary:

  As defined in RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, in traditional broadcast network,
  router-lsa includes a metric defining interface output cost but not the
  network-lsa. RFC 6845 defines a mechanism to allow a broadcast network
  to work as a hybrid of broadcast and point-to-multipoint networks to
  allow accurate representation of the cost of communication between different
  routers on the network.
  This document proposes an enhancement by adding a “Network-to-Router” metric,
  and it reduces the size and the number of updates of router-lsa.

  The technical aspect of the document, both within the document and mailing
  list discussions, have been stable for the last twelve months.

  Document Quality:

  This document has been a WG document for more than one year.
  It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
  than one year. 

  Personnel:

      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas 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.

  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol to
  represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts. The
  introduced mechanism can reduce the size and number of updates of router-lsa
  for such network.
  There is healthy participation, discussion, and review by the OSPF WG. 
  There are no outstanding issues with this draft.

  One editorial comment: In the last two paragraphs of section 1
  “Introduction”, the word “consider” were used three times, please
  consider rewrite it.

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

    No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

    None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
 
    Yes.

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

    There has been an IPR disclosure: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2287/

    All authors indicated during the WG adoption poll that they knew of no
    other IPR on the draft. Tom McMillan could not reply to the second IPR
    poll due to a medical leave. 


(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 strong consensus 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.

      Please fix all the nits identified:
      https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id
      /draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-03.txt

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

    Not applicable.

(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.

    Yes, this document updates RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, which are listed on the
    title.
    Please update the "Abstract" to include the updates.

(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).
 
    This document requests the following IANA assignments:
      A new bit in Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability
      Bits, to indicate the capability of supporting two-part metric.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)
      registry, for the Network-to-Router TE Metric Sub-TLV.
   
    The IANA Considerations section correctly identifies the required
    registrations.

(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.

      New registries required are listed in section (17). No Expert Review is
      necessary when allocating new values, as new values can be allocated via
      IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.

(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.

      Not applicable.

As discussed with Acee & Abhay, I am returning this draft to the WG so that its normative dependence on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend and the associated IANA registry can be handled.  Since the IANA registry for OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV hasn't yet been created, the WG needs to manage that registry space in an internet-draft.

draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend is waiting on implementations to progress.

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

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-parameters/

a single new capability bit will be registered as follows:

Bit Number: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Capability Name: Two-Part Metric support
Reference: [ RFFC-to-be ]

Second, in the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

a new Sub-TLV is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Network-to-Router Metric TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, the authors request a registration in the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry in section 4 of the current document. IANA is unable to locate a registry with this title.

IANA Question --> Please provide a URI of the registry for which the IANA request: "A new Sub-TLV type (TBD3) in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry, for the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV" was intended.

Fourth, in the Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2) subregistry of the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/

a new type will be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Sub-TLV: Network-to-Router TE Metric Sub-TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the four actions above are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, yiqu@cisco.com, akatlas@gmail.com, ospf-chairs@ietf.org, "Yingzhen Qu"
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF Two-part Metric) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'OSPF Two-part Metric'
  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 2016-08-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol,
  to represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts: the
  metric from a router to the network, and the metric from the network
  to the router.  The router to router metric would be the sum of the
  two.  This document updates RFC 2328 and RFC 5340.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric/ballot/

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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2287/



The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-lsa-extend: OSPFv3 LSA Extendibility (None - IETF stream)
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

(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?

    A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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:

  Technical Summary:

  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol,
  to represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts: the
  metric from a router to the network, and the metric from the network
  to the router.  The router to router metric would be the sum of the
  two.

  Working Group Summary:

  As defined in RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, in traditional broadcast network,
  router-lsa includes a metric defining interface output cost but not the
  network-lsa. RFC 6845 defines a mechanism to allow a broadcast network
  to work as a hybrid of broadcast and point-to-multipoint networks to
  allow accurate representation of the cost of communication between different
  routers on the network.
  This document proposes an enhancement by adding a “Network-to-Router” metric,
  and it reduces the size and the number of updates of router-lsa.

  The technical aspect of the document, both within the document and mailing
  list discussions, have been stable for the last twelve months.

  Document Quality:

  This document has been a WG document for more than one year.
  It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
  than one year. 

  Personnel:

      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas 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.

  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol to
  represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts. The
  introduced mechanism can reduce the size and number of updates of router-lsa
  for such network.
  There is healthy participation, discussion, and review by the OSPF WG. 
  There are no outstanding issues with this draft.

  One editorial comment: In the last two paragraphs of section 1
  “Introduction”, the word “consider” were used three times, please
  consider rewrite it.

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

    No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

    None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
 
    Yes.

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

    There has been an IPR disclosure: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2287/

    All authors indicated during the WG adoption poll that they knew of no
    other IPR on the draft. Tom McMillan could not reply to the second IPR
    poll due to a medical leave. 


(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 strong consensus 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.

      Please fix all the nits identified:
      https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id
      /draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-03.txt

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

    Not applicable.

(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.

    Yes, this document updates RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, which are listed on the
    title.
    Please update the "Abstract" to include the updates.

(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).
 
    This document requests the following IANA assignments:
      A new bit in Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability
      Bits, to indicate the capability of supporting two-part metric.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)
      registry, for the Network-to-Router TE Metric Sub-TLV.
   
    The IANA Considerations section correctly identifies the required
    registrations.

(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.

      New registries required are listed in section (17). No Expert Review is
      necessary when allocating new values, as new values can be allocated via
      IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.

(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.

      Not applicable.

(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?

    A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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:

  Technical Summary:

  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol,
  to represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts: the
  metric from a router to the network, and the metric from the network
  to the router.  The router to router metric would be the sum of the
  two.

  Working Group Summary:

  As defined in RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, in traditional broadcast network,
  router-lsa includes a metric defining interface output cost but not the
  network-lsa. RFC 6845 defines a mechanism to allow a broadcast network
  to work as a hybrid of broadcast and point-to-multipoint networks to
  allow accurate representation of the cost of communication between different
  routers on the network.
  This document proposes an enhancement by adding a “Network-to-Router” metric,
  and it reduces the size and the number of updates of router-lsa.

  The technical aspect of the document, both within the document and mailing
  list discussions, have been stable for the last twelve months.

  Document Quality:

  This document has been a WG document for more than one year.
  It is stable, without changes to the technical solution for more
  than one year. 

  Personnel:

      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alia Atlas 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.

  This document specifies an optional extension to the OSPF protocol to
  represent the metric on a multi-access network as two parts. The
  introduced mechanism can reduce the size and number of updates of router-lsa
  for such network.
  There is healthy participation, discussion, and review by the OSPF WG. 
  There are no outstanding issues with this draft.

  One editorial comment: In the last two paragraphs of section 1
  “Introduction”, the word “consider” were used three times, please
  consider rewrite it.

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

    No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

    None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
 
    Yes.

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

    There has been an IPR disclosure: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2287/

    All authors indicated during the WG adoption poll that they knew of no
    other IPR on the draft. Tom McMillan could not reply to the second IPR
    poll due to a medical league. 


(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 strong consensus 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.

      Please fix all the nits identified:
      https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id
      /draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-03.txt

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

    Not applicable.

(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.

    Yes, this document updates RFC 2328 and RFC 5340, which are listed on the
    title.
    Please update the "Abstract" to include the updates.

(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).
 
    This document requests the following IANA assignments:
      A new bit in Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability
      Bits, to indicate the capability of supporting two-part metric.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPF Extended Link TLV Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLV registry, for
      the Network-to-Router Metric Sub-TLV.
      A new Sub-TLV type in Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)
      registry, for the Network-to-Router TE Metric Sub-TLV.
   
    The IANA Considerations section correctly identifies the required
    registrations.

(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.

      New registries required are listed in section (17). No Expert Review is
      necessary when allocating new values, as new values can be allocated via
      IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.

(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.

      Not applicable.