Subject: [Isis-wg] ISIS to go standards track.

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:34:05 -0800

We believe the rough consensus of the ISIS WG, based on the mailing 
list thread regarding this issue, is that ISIS should participate in 
the IETF standards track process.

The main reasons for moving to the standards track process are:

1) The standards track is a part of the IETF process and ISIS WG being 
a part of the IETF should participate. In case people are wondering RFC 
2026/BCP 9 documents said process. 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt)

2) Ability for standards bodies (including IETF) to make normative 
references to ISIS WG documents.

The main reason given for not using the standards track process was:

3) There may not be enough interest (commercial or otherwise) in 
supporting the added complexity of the process.

If (3) indeed holds to be true then the ISIS WG will fail to produce 
internet standards; however, we will still have produced RFCs of at 
least the quality as before.

The next step will be to determine which documents should be placed on 
the standards track. This decision should be based on (1) and (2) from 
above, and the ISO agreement RFC 3563 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3563.txt). We will do this in a separate 
thread.

Chris.

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Philip Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:09:00 +0000

I have the latest version of G.7712 ( at least I think I do, it's version 
1.5 from Jan 2003 ).

This makes a direct reference to RFC 1195 (no problem as it's standards 
track), but with an additional overlap-of-at-least-one protocols supported 
for adjacency creation.
It also explicitly allows IP External Reachability TLV in level-1 (contrary 
to 1195)
It specifies that none-CLNP NEs must ignore ESH
It re-writes (and non-normatively refers to) RFC 2966
It re-writes (and non-normatively refers to) RFC 3373
These are mandatory behaviour for IP capable SONET/SDH ADMs.

It re-writes the automatic encap draft in an Appendix as optional behaviour.

Therefore as far as G.7712 is concerned RFC 2966 and 3373 are the problem 
ones as they are mandatory behaviour but not standards track.

Hope that helps, Philip

>The next step will be to determine which documents should be placed on the 
>standards track. This decision should be based on (1) and (2) from above, 
>and the ISO agreement RFC 3563 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3563.txt). We 
>will do this in a separate thread.
>
>Chris.
>
>