IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
(Ron Bonica) Yes
(Ross Callon) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
I support the publication of this spec as PS. I reviewed the diffs to RFC 3784 and they seemed correct. I did have a few questions and observations though: 1. I didn't understand the difference in use for Interface IP address and Neighbor IP address options. Is some additional guidance needed here? But this is the first IS-IS document that I read, its possible that the answer is in some other documents :-) 2. For my education, what is the state of IPv6 support in IS-IS? 3. In the document header, there is confusing linewrap on "Working Group". 4. The first author's contact information needs an update. I changed the tracker to include him explicitly.
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) No Objection
(Chris Newman) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
I do not intent to block the publication of this document or of the whole set of is-is documents as PS, but I would like to raise the issue of the manageability and operational considerations. > Mechanisms and procedures to migrate to the new TLVs are not discussed in this document. Where are they discussed? What is the operational impact of the migration on existing networks? Also, what changes from a manageability point of view. Does the IS-IS MIB published as RFC4444 already cover the functionality described in the series of I-Ds that we are now migrating from Experimental to PS, or does it need an update? Or maybe some other new management interfaces need to be introduced?
(Mark Townsley) No Objection
Magnus Westerlund No Objection
(David Ward) Recuse
ISIS has an IPv6 draft for the base proto and a V6-TE draft. V6 in ISIS is widely developed and deployed on the internet