On 26/09/2022 18:02, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Flood Reflection'
<draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10.txt> 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2022-10-10. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
I am confused by s.8.3 as introduced at AD Review for IANA Considerations.
It specifies a new registry with a name that starts 'Sub-sub TLVs for
Flood....''under the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" Grouping.
Grouping is not a term I recognise. IANA have just responded to a Last
Call comment on dnsop-dnssec-bcp to clarify that the preferred
terminology is registry and registry group; I cannot recall seeing
'grouping' being used.
Further, I cannot see IS-IS TLV Codepoints in any form.
IS-IS is one of those rare protocols whose IANA registry are all
together under a group with an obvious name so while this I-D does not
mention the group name, it is one of those rare cases when that should
not be a problem.
Second, there are several existing registry of Sub-Sub TLVs so Sub-Sub
would seem better - I do note that RFC8401 which created Sub-Sub-TLVs
for BIER uses sub-sub!
But the significant point is that I do not understand the reference in
the Registration Procedures to common expert review guidance for the
grouping since I do not know what is meant by a grouping.
Tom Petch
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/
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
