[rfc-dist] RFC 8918 on Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Thu, 24 September 2020 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD00D3A08C4 for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odWAt_smERZh for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9464B3A08E3 for <rfc-dist-archive-yuw6Xa6hiena@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7B5F4077C; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 44822F40776; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20200924221916.44822F40776@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 15:19:16 -0700
Subject: [rfc-dist] RFC 8918 on Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
X-BeenThere: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Announcements <rfc-dist.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-dist <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 8918

        Title:      Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS 
        Author:     L. Ginsberg,
                    P. Wells,
                    T. Li,
                    T. Przygienda,
                    S. Hegde
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       September 2020
        Mailbox:    ginsberg@cisco.com, 
                    pauwells@cisco.com, 
                    tony.li@tony.li,
                    prz@juniper.net, 
                    shraddha@juniper.net
        Pages:      8
        Updates:    RFC 5305, RFC 6232

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-03.txt

        URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8918

        DOI:        10.17487/RFC8918

The key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of
unsupported and/or invalid Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples. Although
there are explicit statements in existing specifications, deployment
experience has shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior
when a TLV that is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit
(PDU) is received.

This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior
explicit in order to ensure that interoperability is maximized.

This document updates RFCs 5305 and 6232.

This document is a product of the Link State Routing Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Official
Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the 
standardization state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this 
memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


_______________________________________________
rfc-dist mailing list
rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
http://www.rfc-editor.org