Subject: [Isis-wg] Experimental TLV to go Experimental?

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:47:05 -0700

At the previous IETF the suggestion was made of moving the  
experimental TLV draft to experimental (as we have no implementations  
in development). We agreed to take this to the list. I've included  
the minutes on this issue below.

If no-one has objection we will submit this to IESG as an  
experimental RFC.

Chris & Dave.

Minutes:

Chris Hopps:  There was a request to ask the group if anyone had an  
issue with reviving the draft and taking it to Experimental?

Bill Fenner: There's been this weird tension between wanting to do
neat new things with new TLVs and wanted to be sure that what's
deployed is documented.  One conceivable thing to do is to restrict
what's done by restricting the allocations, but that won't work b/c
people will implement without allocating - so that won't work either.
That's my main concern with this.  We may get pushback from Ops b/c it
gives the ability to put anything out there with no documentation.

Chris Hopps: Shouldn't that be driven by the operators who are going
to use it?

Dave Ward: No known implementations - talked about it for the last few
years.  Asked for hands for interest in resurrecting the space (no
hands).  Asked for hands for no interest (again no hands).

Dino: If a vendor wanted a proprietary TLV, would you recommend them
using this or something else?

Chris Hopps: This - it uses an enterprise code plus whatever the
vendor.  (Gives details on solution in draft - one TLV & then
enterprise can put whatever it wants in it.) We'll take this to the
list.

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

---

From: Philip Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:44:22 +0100

I'm still available to submit / edit it if needs be.
This TLV is probably of more obvious benefit to vendors; however if
vendors do not have an easy way to do this then there is always the risk
that they just implement and be damned.
It is then the operators who will have to pick up the pieces and who
will find themselves stuck with one vendor because interoperability
problems will mean that once vendor A is there then vendor B cannot work
properly in that network.
This draft basically makes vendor A and B leave each other alone so that
they can co-exist without things messing up.
Probably there was more demand for this three or four years ago when I
originally submitted it.  Everyone was full of brilliant ideas and had
big development groups ready to make the magic happen quickly......
Anyway for anyone that hasn't got a copy the last draft is archived here:-
http://www.christiantena.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/standards/ietf/draft-ietf-isis-experimental-tlv-05.txt

Regards, Philip Christian