Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Request for Comments: 7370 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track September 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Request for Comments: 7370 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track September 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
Updates to the IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry
IS-IS TLV代码点注册表的更新
Abstract
摘要
This document recommends some editorial changes to the IANA "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry to more accurately document the state of the protocol. It also sets out new guidelines for Designated Experts to apply when reviewing allocations from the registry.
本文件建议对IANA“IS-IS TLV代码点”注册表进行一些编辑性修改，以更准确地记录协议状态。它还为指定专家在审查书记官处的拨款时适用制定了新的准则。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7370.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2014 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IS Neighbor Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry was created by [RFC3563] and extended by [RFC6233]. The assignment policy for the registry is "Expert Review" as defined in [RFC5226]. As documents related to IS-IS are developed, the codepoints required for the protocol extensions are reviewed by the Designated Experts and added to the IANA-managed registry. As these documents are published as RFCs, the registries are updated to reference the relevant RFC.
“IS-IS TLV代码点”注册表由[RFC3563]创建，并由[RFC6233]扩展。注册处的分配政策为[RFC5226]中定义的“专家评审”。随着IS-IS相关文件的编制，协议扩展所需的代码点由指定专家审查，并添加到IANA管理的注册表中。由于这些文件以RFC的形式发布，登记处将更新以参考相关RFC。
In the case of TLVs supporting prefix advertisement, currently separate sub-TLV registries are maintained for each TLV. These registries need to be combined into a common sub-TLV registry similar to what has been done for neighbor advertisement TLVs.
对于支持前缀播发的TLV，当前为每个TLV维护单独的子TLV注册表。这些注册表需要合并到一个公共的子TLV注册表中，类似于为相邻的播发TLV所做的工作。
In some cases, there is a need to allocate codepoints defined in Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) that seem likely to eventually gain Working Group approval, without waiting for those I-Ds to be published as RFCs. This can be achieved using Expert Review, and this document sets out guidance for the Designated Experts to apply when reviewing allocations from the registry.
在某些情况下，需要分配互联网草案（I-D）中定义的代码点，这些代码点似乎最终可能获得工作组的批准，而无需等待这些I-D作为RFC发布。这可以通过专家审查来实现，本文件为指定专家在审查登记处的拨款时提供了指导。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
There was an existing common sub-TLV registry named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 141, and 222". [RFC5311] defines the IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23) and the MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). The format of these TLVs is identical to TLVs 22 and 222, respectively. The IS Neighbor sub-TLV registry has been extended to include these two TLVs. Settings for inclusion of each sub-TLV are identical to the settings for TLVs 22 and 222, respectively.
有一个现有的通用子TLV注册表，名为“用于TLV 22、141和222的子TLV”。[RFC5311]定义IS邻居属性TLV（23）和MT IS邻居属性TLV（223）。这些TLV的格式分别与TLV 22和222相同。IS邻居子TLV注册表已扩展，以包括这两个TLV。每个子TLV的包含设置分别与TLV 22和222的设置相同。
Previously, there existed separate sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237. As in the case of the IS Neighbor TLVs discussed in the previous section, assignment of sub-TLVs applicable to one or more of these TLVs is intended to be common. Therefore, the existing separate sub-TLV registries have been combined into a single registry entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237". As existing sub-TLV assignments are common to all the TLVs, this represents no change to the protocol -- only a clearer representation of the intended sub-TLV allocation strategy. The format of the registry is as shown below:
以前，TLV 135、235、236和237存在单独的子TLV注册。与前一节中讨论的IS相邻TLV的情况一样，适用于一个或多个TLV的子TLV的分配是常见的。因此，现有的独立次级TLV登记册已合并为一个名为“用于TLV 135、235、236和237的次级TLV”的单一登记册。由于现有的子TLV分配对于所有TLV都是通用的，因此这并不表示对协议的更改——只是更清楚地表示了预期的子TLV分配策略。注册表的格式如下所示：
Type Description 135 235 236 237 Reference
---- ------------ --- --- --- --- ---------
0 Unassigned
1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y y y y [RFC5130]
2 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y y y y [RFC5130]
3-255 Unassigned
Type Description 135 235 236 237 Reference
---- ------------ --- --- --- --- ---------
0 Unassigned
1 32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y y y y [RFC5130]
2 64-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV y y y y [RFC5130]
3-255 Unassigned
When new I-Ds are introduced requiring new codepoints, it is advantageous to be able to allocate codepoints without waiting for them to progress to RFC. The reasons this is advantageous are described in [RFC7120]. However, the procedures in [RFC7120] for early allocation do not apply to registries, such as the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry, that utilize the "Expert Review" allocation policy. In such cases, what is required is that a request be made to the Designated Experts who MAY approve the assignments according to the guidance that has been established for the registry concerned.
当引入需要新代码点的新I-D时，能够分配代码点而无需等待它们进展到RFC是有利的。[RFC7120]中描述了这一优势的原因。然而，[RFC7120]中关于提前分配的程序不适用于使用“专家评审”分配政策的登记处，如“IS-IS TLV代码点”登记处。在这种情况下，所需的是向指定专家提出请求，指定专家可根据为有关登记处制定的指导意见批准任务。
The following guidance applies specifically to the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.
以下指南特别适用于“IS-IS TLV代码点”注册表。
1. Application for a codepoint allocation MAY be made to the Designated Experts at any time.
1. 可随时向指定专家申请代码点分配。
2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.
2. 指定的专家应仅考虑已被接受为工作组文件或计划在没有适当的特许工作组的情况下作为广告赞助文件的i-DS产生的请求。
3. In the case of Working Group documents, the Designated Experts SHOULD check with the Working Group chairs that there is consensus within the Working Group to make the allocation at this time. In the case of AD Sponsored documents, the Designated Experts SHOULD check with the AD for approval to make the allocation at this time.
3. 就工作组文件而言，指定专家应与工作组主席核实，工作组内部是否已就此时进行分配达成共识。如果是广告赞助的文件，指定的专家应与广告核实，以获得批准，以便在此时进行分配。
4. The Designated Experts SHOULD then review the assignment requests on their technical merit. The Designated Experts SHOULD NOT seek to overrule IETF consensus, but they MAY raise issues for further consideration before the assignments are made.
4. 然后，指定专家应根据其技术优势审查任务请求。指定的专家不应试图推翻IETF共识，但他们可能会在分配任务之前提出问题供进一步考虑。
5. Once the Designated Experts have granted approval, IANA will update the registry by marking the allocated codepoints with a reference to the associated document as normal.
5. 一旦指定专家批准，IANA将通过将分配的代码点标记为参考相关文件来更新注册表。
6. In the event that the document fails to progress to RFC, the Expiry and deallocation process defined in [RFC7120] MUST be followed for the relevant codepoints -- noting that the Designated Experts perform the role assigned to Working Group chairs.
6. 如果文件未能进展到RFC，则相关代码点必须遵循[RFC7120]中定义的到期和解除分配流程——注意指定专家履行分配给工作组主席的职责。
This document provides guidance to the Designated Experts appointed to manage allocation requests in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.
本文件为指定专家提供指导，指定专家负责管理“IS-IS TLV代码点”注册表中的分配请求。
IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 141, and 222" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223".
IANA已将指定为“TLV 22、141和222的子TLV”的注册表更新为“TLV 22、23、141、222和223的子TLV”。
Per this document, the existing sub-TLV registries for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 have been combined into a single registry -- the "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237" registry -- as described in Section 3.
根据本文件，如第3节所述，TLV 135、235、236和237的现有子TLV登记册已合并为一个登记册——“TLV 135、235、236和237的子TLV”登记册。
This document introduces no new security issues.
本文档没有引入新的安全问题。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., and C. Martin, "A Policy Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", RFC 5130, February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
[RFC5130]Previdi，S.，Shand，M.，和C.Martin，“IS-IS中使用管理标签的策略控制机制”，RFC 5130，2008年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
[RFC5311]McPherson，D.，Ginsberg，L.，Previdi，S.，和M.Shand，“IS-IS链路状态PDU（LSP）空间的简化扩展”，RFC 5311，2009年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
[RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233>.
[RFC6233]Li，T.和L.Ginsberg，“清洗的IS-IS注册扩展”，RFC 62332011年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, January 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC7120]Cotton，M.，“标准轨道代码点的早期IANA分配”，BCP 100，RFC 7120，2014年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development", RFC 3563, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563>.
[RFC3563]Zinin，A.“ISO/IETF和ISO/IEC联合技术委员会1/第6分委员会（JTC1/SC6）之间关于IS-IS路由协议开发的合作协议”，RFC 3563，2003年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
The author wishes to thank Alia Atlas and Amanda Baber for their input in defining the correct process to follow to get these changes implemented. Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for crafting the text in Section 4.
作者希望感谢Alia Atlas和Amanda Baber在定义实施这些变更所需遵循的正确流程方面的投入。特别感谢Adrian Farrel在第4节中精心编写了文本。
Author's Address
作者地址
Les Ginsberg Cisco Systems 510 McCarthy Blvd. Milpitas, CA 95035 United States
莱斯金斯伯格思科系统公司，麦卡锡大道510号。美国加利福尼亚州米尔皮塔斯95035
EMail: ginsberg@cisco.com
EMail: ginsberg@cisco.com