rfc9650.original   rfc9650.txt 
LSR Working Group T. Li Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Li
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Request for Comments: 9650 Juniper Networks
Updates: 5029 (if approved) 29 July 2024 Updates: 5029 August 2024
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: 30 January 2025 ISSN: 2070-1721
Revision to Registration Procedures for IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Revision to Registration Procedures for IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute
Bit Values Bit Values
draft-ietf-lsr-labv-registration-03
Abstract Abstract
RFC 5029, "Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute Sub-TLV", defines a RFC 5029, "Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute Sub-TLV", defines an
registry for "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values". This IANA registry called "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values".
document changes the registration procedure for that registry from This document changes the registration procedure for that registry
"Standards Action" to "Expert Review". This document updates from "Standards Action" to "Expert Review". This document updates
RFC5029. RFC 5029.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 January 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9650.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. IANA Considerations
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Security Considerations
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. References
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Normative References
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2. Informative References
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgements
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5029] defines the "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values" [RFC5029] defines the "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values"
registry and specifies a registration procedure of "Standards registry and specifies a registration procedure of "Standards
Action". In practice, this registration procedure is unnecessarily Action". In practice, this registration procedure is unnecessarily
restrictive, as it prevents allocation of bits to experimental restrictive, as it prevents allocation of bits to experimental
protocols, which in turn increases the risk of conflicts introduced protocols, which in turn increases the risk of conflicts introduced
by use of unregistered code points (so-called "code point by use of unregistered code points (so-called "code point
squatting"). squatting").
Accordingly, this document changes the registration procedure for the Accordingly, this document changes the registration procedure for the
registry, as described in Section 2. registry, as described in Section 2.
2. IANA Considerations 2. IANA Considerations
The registration procedure for the "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit IANA has changed the registration procedure for the "IS-IS Neighbor
Values" registry is changed to be "Expert Review". General guidance Link-Attribute Bit Values" registry to "Expert Review" [RFC8126] and
for the designated experts is defined in [RFC7370] and more specific has listed this document as a reference for the registry. General
guidance can be found in [RFC5029]. guidance for the designated experts is defined in [RFC7370], and more
specific guidance can be found in [RFC5029].
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document does not affect the security issues discussed in RFC This document does not affect the security issues discussed in
5029. [RFC5029].
4. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank John Scudder for his contributions.
5. References 4. References
5.1. Normative References 4.1. Normative References
[RFC5029] Vasseur, JP. and S. Previdi, "Definition of an IS-IS Link [RFC5029] Vasseur, JP. and S. Previdi, "Definition of an IS-IS Link
Attribute Sub-TLV", RFC 5029, DOI 10.17487/RFC5029, Attribute Sub-TLV", RFC 5029, DOI 10.17487/RFC5029,
September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5029>. September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5029>.
5.2. Informative References 4.2. Informative References
[RFC7370] Ginsberg, L., "Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints [RFC7370] Ginsberg, L., "Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
Registry", RFC 7370, DOI 10.17487/RFC7370, September 2014, Registry", RFC 7370, DOI 10.17487/RFC7370, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank John Scudder for his contributions.
Author's Address Author's Address
Tony Li Tony Li
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Email: tony.li@tony.li Email: tony.li@tony.li
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 54 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.