Re: draft-ietf-isis-traffic

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> > Remind me why the WG is doing what IANA should be doing...

> can you be specific?

>From the doc:

   The Sub-TLV type space is managed by the IETF IS-IS WG
   (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/isis-charter.html). New type
   values are allocated following review on the IETF IS-IS mailing list.
   This will normally require publication of additional documentation
   describing how the new type is used. In the event that the IS-IS
   working group has disbanded the review shall be performed by a
   Designated Expert assigned by the responsible Area Director.

No mention of iana or recording values there.

The document I couldn't find before that talks about this is rfc3359.

I will note, however, that the sub-tla space seems to be getting used
for IP stuff. rfc3359 says:

   This document is provided to avoid possible future conflicts in the
   assignment of TLV numbers.  It does not constitute or represent any
   standard or authority assigning TLV numbers.  TLV assignment happens
   on a shared, informational basis between the ISO, SIF and the IETF
   working groups.  The core ISIS protocol is being specified in the ISO
   standards body, IP extensions to it however are products of the ISIS
   working group in IETF.  Since ISO does not provide a numbering
   authority and IANA is only responsible for IP related coding points,
   no plausible central authority to assign TLV numbers exists as of
   today.

So I'm not exactly clear why IANA isn't used. But we probably don't
want to spend too much time on this, as it's an old issue. I just don't
feel good about what we're doing here.

Thomas