Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-10.txt> (IS-IS Flood Reflection) to Experimental RFC

Hi Tom, 

On 9/28/22, 5:41 AM, "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:

    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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-10-10. Exceptionally, comments may
    > be sent to iesg@ietf.org 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.

Here is the grouping of related registries. Maybe the confusion is that since it is multiple registries, it doesn't show up as a link in https://www.iana.org/protocols

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#tlv-codepoints

Thanks,
Acee

    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@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
    > .
    >