The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Multi-Part TLVs in IS-IS' (draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-18.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Link State Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan Talaulikar. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv/ Technical Summary New technologies are adding new information into IS-IS while deployment scales are simultaneously increasing, causing the contents of many critical TLVs to exceed the currently supported limit of 255 octets. Extensions exist that require significant IS-IS changes that could help address the problem, but a less drastic solution would be beneficial. This document codifies the common mechanism of extending the TLV content space through multiple TLVs. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There have been two main areas of debate: * Worries about operational interop, which found consensus solution by adding text in the draft to mandate alarms and strongly encourages implementers to provide configuration knobs to enable/disable multi-part TLVs * Intense debate about what constitutes as a ISIS TLV/sub-TLV "key". The WG debated and landed upon a rough consensus during WGLC where all perspectives were debated and investigated. The single person who disagreed and was in the rough, filed an appeal (November 6, 2024) which was declined by IESG (January 24, 2025). * Shepherd report has been updated with the narrative of the document evolution through WGLC and IETF LC Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Document quality is good and details the Working Group rough consensus Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Yingzhen Qu. The Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
