Protocol Action: 'Revision to Registration Procedures for IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration-03.txt)

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 08 August 2024 16:08 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Revision to Registration Procedures for IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration-03.txt)
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <172313329349.92725.1050720984592562161@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:08:13 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: UASICXGZODD5A5YZHP5VDYHSG44I7AQY
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/q3hxQ00D_dcyYK9Y9DbZefEe6RQ>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Revision to Registration Procedures for IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute
Bit Values'
(draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration-03.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 John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration/

Technical Summary

RFC 5029, "Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute Sub-TLV", defines a
registry for "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values". This
document changes the registration procedure for that registry from
"Standards Action" to "Expert Review".

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 was absolute consensus this draft is useful, needed and complete.
The WG would like to fast track this document so that future pending temporary allocations can be avoided

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. This draft intends to change an IANA registry procedure from "Standards Action" to "Expert Review" to allow experimental track documents to obtain code points and avoid perpetual renewing of requested code points for aforementioned type drafts/rfcs

Personnel

The Document Shepherd for this document is Yingzhen Qu. The Responsible
Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

(Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

> IANA Question --> Should [ RFC-to-be ] be added to the references for the IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values registry as a result of this change?
Answer: Yes, that would make sense. This would allow people following the references to understand why the registry is no longer exactly the way that it was originally created.

Protocol Action: 'Revision to Registration Proced… The IESG