RFC 3563

Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development

📅 published July 2003, from ietf

Cooperative Agreement Between ISOC/IETF and JTC1/SC6 on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development 💖

Okay bestie, this is RFC 3563, and it's the agreement between the Internet Society (ISOC/IETF) and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 about how they'll co-develop the IS-IS routing protocol 🎀 It was written by A. Zinin of Alcatel, it's Informational (so it's not a standard), and it's dated July 2003. The header doesn't list any RFC it obsoletes or updates ✨

Status of This Memo 🌸

This memo gives information to the Internet community. It is NOT a standard of any kind 🫶 Anyone can distribute it freely.

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract 🦋

Okay so this doc is the agreed text between ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 about working on IS-IS together. It covers what work each org is responsible for, a request that IANA create and keep an IS-IS registry, and some collaboration rules 🤝

Document Header 🎀

This is Annexe 1 to the Cooperative Agreement between the Internet Society and the International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission / Joint Technical Committee 1 / Sub Committee 6 (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6), and it's all about IS-IS Routing Protocols 💜

Date: 2003-01-28

It records the collaborative process they agreed on for further developing and standardising the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) intra-domain routing protocol, which is ISO/IEC 10589 🧚

1. Introduction ✨

IS-IS was originally built inside ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC6, and it's been running successfully across the Internet for several years now 🌈

JTC1/SC6 is the JTC1 sub-committee in charge of maintaining the IS-IS standard (ISO/IEC 10589) 👑

The IETF's IS-IS Working Group is chartered to write extensions to IS-IS for use within the Internet scope 🦋

This addendum is where the agreed process for both orgs to keep developing IS-IS in the future gets written down 💅

2. Definitions 🌸

2.1 Core IS-IS Mechanisms

Core IS-IS Mechanisms are the subsystems that come with their own algorithms, data structures, and PDU formats, as specified in (ISO/IEC 10589). They're basically the heart of IS-IS, and they include:

  • a) Framework of PDU formats, including TLVs defined in [10589]
  • b) Encapsulation of PDUs
  • c) Adjacency state machine and formation logic
  • d) DIS election algorithm
  • e) Initial LSP synchronization via CSNP exchange
  • f) Asynchronous LSP flooding (including DIS flooding behavior)
  • g) LSP database maintenance including LSP origination, aging, and purging
  • h) Topology abstraction defined in [10589]

2.2 Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions:

Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions are extensions to IS-IS that sit inside the IETF's work scope. That includes any routing or packet forwarding tech the IETF decides to take on later (like IPv4 or IPv6 unicast and multicast routing, MPLS, MPLS Traffic Engineering, or Generalized MPLS) 🔥 To count as one of these, an extension has to meet one of the following:

  • a) It doesn't modify the Core IS-IS Mechanisms, and it doesn't change how non-IP implementations work or affect compatibility with non-IP and dual implementations of IS-IS, OR
  • b) It adds supplementary mechanisms to the Core IS-IS Mechanisms, those mechanisms aren't generally applicable to non-IP implementations of IS-IS, and it doesn't change how non-IP implementations work or affect compatibility with non-IP and dual implementations of IS-IS, OR
  • c) It's a de facto implementation agreement that isn't generally applicable to non-IP implementations of IS-IS.
Heads up, this one's important 👀 Adding new TLVs or sub-TLVs doesn't count as modifying the Core Mechanisms, as long as they don't change the algorithms in a way that would hurt interoperability with non-IP or dual implementations of IS-IS.

3. Agreement 📜

The following conventions are used in the rest of this document 🎀

SHALL      This term is used to indicate commitment to follow a
           specific element of this agreement.

MUST       Equivalent to "SHALL"

SHALL NOT  This phrase is used to indicate commitment to NOT perform
           a specific action

MAY        This term is used to indicate the right to perform a
           specific action

SHOULD     This term is used to indicate that following a specific
           element of this agreement is encouraged, however there may
           exist circumstances in which a decision may be made not to
           do so.

3.1 Separation of IS-IS Work Scope 🌈

JTC1 SHALL NOT, and the IETF MAY (subject to the IETF standards process), standardize any Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions 💖

Any IS-IS Extensions the IETF produces that need standardizing, but can't be identified as Internet-specific under section 2.2 of this document, SHOULD be submitted to JTC1 for standardization (see section 3.3.2). IETF SHALL NOT publish documents describing those extensions except as Informational RFCs 🙈

IS-IS extensions going from the IETF to JTC1 will be processed under the JTC1 fast track procedure. To keep those submissions high quality, IETF SHALL apply the procedures for Proposed Standard submission under [RFC2026] to them (even though these documents won't be published as standards-track IETF RFCs) ✨

If it's not clear from this document whether a protocol extension should be standardized in the IETF or in JTC1, the call gets made case by case. It's based on agreement between the two orgs, reached through discussion between the IETF Routing Area Directors or the IETF liaison to JTC1/SC6 (who reflects the IETF consensus on the matter), and the JTC1/SC6 secretariat 🤝

3.2 Requirements for IS-IS-specific IETF documents 🦋

All IS-IS-related IETF documents meant to be published as IETF standards track RFCs MUST include a section explaining why they qualify as Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions described in section 2.2 of this document 🫶

3.3 IS-IS Registries (IANA Considerations) 🌸

3.3.1 IS-IS TLV Codepoint Registry 💜

Until JTC1 provides a registry service for IS-IS, IANA is asked to temporarily keep one, as described below. Once JTC1 gives notice, the registry management authority (that is, value allocation) moves over to JTC1. IANA MAY still keep the registry for informational purposes and keep updating it based on information JTC1 provides 🧚

IANA has created and currently maintains a registry for IS-IS TLV codepoints. The range of values is 0-255. The initial state of the registry should be synchronized with [RFC3359]. Allocating values in the registry has to be approved by the designated expert assigned by the IESG. IETF SHALL keep JTC1/SC6 informed about the TLV codepoint values that get allocated, and JTC1/SC6 SHALL send allocation requests that come up within JTC1 constituencies to the IANA registry process 💅

3.3.2 IETF-specific Registries 🌈

IETF MAY ask IANA to maintain IS-IS-related registries if they're needed to maintain name spaces internal to Internet-specific IS-IS extensions 🎀

6. Security Considerations ✨

okay so this one is short and sweet 🎀 this type of non-protocol document does not directly affect the security of the Internet. no security drama here bestie 💅

7. Author's Address 📮

Here's who wrote it 💖

Alex Zinin
Alcatel

EMail: zinin@psg.com

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

This is the legal part, so I'm keeping the exact wording so nothing gets lost in translation 🫶

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement 🌸

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Thank you to them for keeping the lights on, periodt 🧚✨

📦 where this page comes from