doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7370.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7370.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b8e4892
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7370.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       L. Ginsberg
+Request for Comments: 7370                                 Cisco Systems
+Category: Standards Track                                 September 2014
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+              Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA "IS-IS
+   TLV Codepoints" registry to more accurately document the state of the
+   protocol.  It also sets out new guidelines for Designated Experts to
+   apply when reviewing allocations from the registry.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7370                  IS-IS TLV Codepoints            September 2014
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
+   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
+   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
+   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
+   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
+   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
+   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
+   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
+   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
+   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
+   than English.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7370                  IS-IS TLV Codepoints            September 2014
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+   2.  IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+   3.  Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+   4.  Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry was created by [RFC3563] and
+   extended by [RFC6233].  The assignment policy for the registry is
+   "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226].  As documents related to
+   IS-IS are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol
+   extensions are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the
+   IANA-managed registry.  As these documents are published as RFCs, the
+   registries are updated to reference the relevant RFC.
+
+   In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently
+   separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV.  These
+   registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar
+   to what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs.
+
+   In some cases, there is a need to allocate codepoints defined in
+   Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that seem likely to eventually gain Working
+   Group approval, without waiting for those I-Ds to be published as
+   RFCs.  This can be achieved using Expert Review, and this document
+   sets out guidance for the Designated Experts to apply when reviewing
+   allocations from the registry.
+
+1.1.  Requirements Language
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7370                  IS-IS TLV Codepoints            September 2014
+
+
+2.  IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry
+
+   There was an existing common sub-TLV registry named "Sub-TLVs for
+   TLVs 22, 141, and 222".  [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute
+   TLV (23) and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223).  The format of
+   these TLVs is identical to TLVs 22 and 222, respectively.  The IS
+   Neighbor sub-TLV registry has been extended to include these two
+   TLVs.  Settings for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the
+   settings for TLVs 22 and 222, respectively.
+
+3.  Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry
+
+   Previously, there existed separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135,
+   235, 236, and 237.  As in the case of the IS Neighbor TLVs discussed
+   in the previous section, assignment of sub-TLVs applicable to one or
+   more of these TLVs is intended to be common.  Therefore, the existing
+   separate sub-TLV registries have been combined into a single registry
+   entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237".  As existing
+   sub-TLV assignments are common to all the TLVs, this represents no
+   change to the protocol -- only a clearer representation of the
+   intended sub-TLV allocation strategy.  The format of the registry is
+   as shown below:
+
+   Type  Description                       135 235 236 237  Reference
+   ----  ------------                      --- --- --- ---  ---------
+   0     Unassigned
+   1     32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV  y   y   y   y   [RFC5130]
+   2     64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV  y   y   y   y   [RFC5130]
+   3-255 Unassigned
+
+4.  Guidance for Designated Experts
+
+   When new I-Ds are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is
+   advantageous to be able to allocate codepoints without waiting for
+   them to progress to RFC.  The reasons this is advantageous are
+   described in [RFC7120].  However, the procedures in [RFC7120] for
+   early allocation do not apply to registries, such as the "IS-IS TLV
+   Codepoints" registry, that utilize the "Expert Review" allocation
+   policy.  In such cases, what is required is that a request be made to
+   the Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to
+   the guidance that has been established for the registry concerned.
+
+   The following guidance applies specifically to the "IS-IS TLV
+   Codepoints" registry.
+
+   1.  Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the
+       Designated Experts at any time.
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7370                  IS-IS TLV Codepoints            September 2014
+
+
+   2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
+       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
+       documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
+       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.
+
+   3.  In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts
+       SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is
+       consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this
+       time.  In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated
+       Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the
+       allocation at this time.
+
+   4.  The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests
+       on their technical merit.  The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek
+       to overrule IETF consensus, but they MAY raise issues for further
+       consideration before the assignments are made.
+
+   5.  Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will
+       update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a
+       reference to the associated document as normal.
+
+   6.  In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the
+       Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be
+       followed for the relevant codepoints -- noting that the
+       Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group
+       chairs.
+
+5.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document provides guidance to the Designated Experts appointed
+   to manage allocation requests in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.
+
+   IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for
+   TLVs 22, 141, and 222" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141,
+   222, and 223".
+
+   Per this document, the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135, 235,
+   236, and 237 have been combined into a single registry -- the
+   "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237" registry -- as described
+   in Section 3.
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document introduces no new security issues.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7370                  IS-IS TLV Codepoints            September 2014
+
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [RFC5130]  Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control
+              Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130,
+              February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
+
+   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+              May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
+
+   [RFC5311]  McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand,
+              "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for
+              IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
+
+   [RFC6233]  Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for
+              Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233>.
+
+   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
+              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014,
+              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC3563]  Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
+              and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
+              (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", RFC
+              3563, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7370                  IS-IS TLV Codepoints            September 2014
+
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their
+   input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes
+   implemented.  Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for crafting the text
+   in Section 4.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Les Ginsberg
+   Cisco Systems
+   510 McCarthy Blvd.
+   Milpitas, CA  95035
+   United States
+
+   EMail: ginsberg@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ginsberg                     Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+