Subject: Several issues...

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:03:03 -0800 (PST)

1) 
As we discussed during the WG meeting, we've updated our milestones.
The new milestones can be found at:
http://people.juniper.net/~tli/isis-charter.html

Please note that we forgot to add a milestone for the route leaking
discussions that we've been having.  I've taken the liberty of proposing an
I-D on this by July, and an RFC by November.  Given that we have two I-D's
on this already, this doesn't seem overly aggressive.

If you have comments on this or on any of the other milestones, please
raise them by 23:59 PST, Friday 3/26/99.  Otherwise I'll foward the revised
milestones to the IETF Secretariat at that time.

2)
We would like to start our WG last call on "Maintaining more than 255
adjacencies in IS-IS".  Please comment to the mailing list by 23:59 PST,
Friday 4/2/99.  If there are no objections, we will then move the document
forward as an Informational RFC.

3) 
It turns out that RFC 1195 is currently a proposed standard.  It's
certainly been that way long enough, and something that we could do here to
further our efforts would be to move it to draft standard.  Comments?

Tony^2

---

From: Rajesh Balay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:06:42 -0500

> further our efforts would be to move it to draft standard.  Comments?

I agree with this issue... for the same reasons which are driving us to
work on a "current practices" draft to fix the shortcomings of current spec. 

In my opinion, we need to revise 1195 to be in sync with version 2 of IS-IS.
At the same time we could incorporate all the IP-specific changes too.

We would need to do the following:

1. Propose changes to second edition of IS-IS. This will be pre-cursor to
   updating RFC 1195 since there will be dependancy on the proposed/accepted
   changes to IS-IS spec (ISO 10589).
2. Meanwhile we could work on a "proposed changes to RFC 1195" document. This
   is a more appropriate name than "current practices" document.
3. Once the IS-IS version 2 takes form, we could spin out a revision of 1195.
   This will include the proposed changes and  may also include most of the 
   current "informational" track I-Ds as optional extensions. 
Ofcourse, if it preferable we could short circuit the intermediate step of the
"proposed changes" draft.

regards,
-rajesh

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:56:01 -0800 (PST)

|  > It turns out that RFC 1195 is currently a proposed standard.  It's
|  > certainly been that way long enough, and something that we could do here to
|  > further our efforts would be to move it to draft standard.  Comments?
|  
|  I agree with this issue... for the same reasons which are driving us to
|  work on a "current practices" draft to fix the shortcomings of current spec. 
|  
|  In my opinion, we need to revise 1195 to be in sync with version 2 of IS-IS.
|  At the same time we could incorporate all the IP-specific changes too.
|  
|  We would need to do the following:
|  
|  1. Propose changes to second edition of IS-IS. This will be pre-cursor to
|     updating RFC 1195 since there will be dependancy on the proposed/accepted
|     changes to IS-IS spec (ISO 10589).
|  2. Meanwhile we could work on a "proposed changes to RFC 1195" document. This
|     is a more appropriate name than "current practices" document.
|  3. Once the IS-IS version 2 takes form, we could spin out a revision of 1195.
|     This will include the proposed changes and  may also include most of the 
|     current "informational" track I-Ds as optional extensions. 
|  Ofcourse, if it preferable we could short circuit the intermediate step of the
|  "proposed changes" draft.

Hi,

In fact, one WG member (Les) has been busily looking at the 2nd edition of
ISO 10589 and writing up comments on it.  This is currently
ftp://ftp.juniper.net/pub/isis/isis_review.01.txt.  If folks are interested
in this, they should contact Les ([email-masked]) and help him
out.  We can turn this into an Internet Draft if that is helpful.  However,
the main objective is to insure that version 2 of ISO 10589 isn't badly
broken.

It's not clear (at least to me) that there any changes in V2 of 10589 that
would affect RFC 1195 at all.  If you know of any issues, please raise
them, but without any issues, I would assume that we can continue to leave
them decoupled.

If folks feel that RFC 1195 is sorely out of date in some regard, we can
either continue to publish enhancements or we can update the document
itself.  At this point, I'm not seeing cause to do a full update.

Tony

---

From: Rajesh Balay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:56:28 -0500

> the main objective is to insure that version 2 of ISO 10589 isn't badly

True ... i have not explicitly stated but I was also referring to the document 
Les is working on.

> them, but without any issues, I would assume that we can continue to leave

I have not thought through this... but I was thinking more in terms of eg, 
the proposed changes to "IS Neighbor TLV" in traffic Eng. extensions. 
One option is to propose changes as these for inclusion in V2 of 10589.
Other option is to have these extensions/migration decoupled with the spec
if possible (i prefer this).

> itself.  At this point, I'm not seeing cause to do a full update.

I guess i mis-interpreted your original stmt as updating 1195. Could u 
elaborate more on what u mean by "...move it to draft standard".

thanks,
-rajesh

---

From: Rajesh Balay <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:17:11 -0500

> elaborate more on what u mean by "...move it to draft standard".

... i was ignorant about the "draft standard" term... now i know. Sorry for
the misunderstanding.

-rajesh

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:36:25 -0800 (PST)

|  > It's not clear (at least to me) that there any changes in V2 of 10589 that
|  > would affect RFC 1195 at all.  If you know of any issues, please raise
|  > them, but without any issues, I would assume that we can continue to leave
|  > them decoupled.
|  
|  I have not thought through this... but I was thinking more in terms of eg, 
|  the proposed changes to "IS Neighbor TLV" in traffic Eng. extensions. 
|  One option is to propose changes as these for inclusion in V2 of 10589.
|  Other option is to have these extensions/migration decoupled with the spec
|  if possible (i prefer this).

The best way for us to provide enhancements to 10589 is small,
self-contained documents.  Revising 1195 isn't going to help that issue.

Tony