Error in IANA TLVs listing

Hi,

I believe there is a significant error in the IANA listing of IS-IS TLVs at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints

In particular, both TLV #2 and TLV #6 are listed as "IIS Neighbors". I
believe that is correct for TLV #6 but that TLV #2 is the older IS
Reachability TLV ("narrow metric"). Should someone contact IANA to get
this fixed?

Thanks,
Donald

PS: Actually, to be persnickety, since the reference is ISP 10589,
looking there, I think TLV #6 is called "IS Neighbors" or
"Intermediate System Neighbors", not "IIS Neighbors".
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 <at> gmail.com

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

Hi Donald,

Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I believe there is a significant error in the IANA listing of IS-IS TLVs at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints

I confirm the error.  It seems to source from RFC 3359, which initially 
populated the registry.

> In particular, both TLV #2 and TLV #6 are listed as "IIS Neighbors". I
> believe that is correct for TLV #6 but that TLV #2 is the older IS
> Reachability TLV ("narrow metric"). Should someone contact IANA to get
> this fixed?
>
> PS: Actually, to be persnickety, since the reference is ISP 10589,
> looking there, I think TLV #6 is called "IS Neighbors" or
> "Intermediate System Neighbors", not "IIS Neighbors".

TLV 6 is indeed "Intermediate System Neighbors" (see 9.6).  However, TLV 
2 is also "Intermediate System Neighbors"  (see 9.8, 9.9).

I believe that the correct procedure here is for someone, in this case 
you, as discoverer, to contact IANA and inform them of the error.  As 
the registry is managed under the 'expert review' process, they can 
contact their experts and have this confirmed and corrected.

I propose that the correction be to make them both "IS Neighbors".  It's 

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

I agree with Tony.

    Mike

Tony Li wrote:
>
> Hi Donald,
>
> Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I believe there is a significant error in the IANA listing of IS-IS 
>> TLVs at
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints
>
>
> I confirm the error.  It seems to source from RFC 3359, which 
> initially populated the registry.
>
>
>> In particular, both TLV #2 and TLV #6 are listed as "IIS Neighbors". I
>> believe that is correct for TLV #6 but that TLV #2 is the older IS
>> Reachability TLV ("narrow metric"). Should someone contact IANA to get
>> this fixed?
>>
>> PS: Actually, to be persnickety, since the reference is ISP 10589,
>> looking there, I think TLV #6 is called "IS Neighbors" or
>> "Intermediate System Neighbors", not "IIS Neighbors".
>
> TLV 6 is indeed "Intermediate System Neighbors" (see 9.6).  However, 

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

OK, I'll send in an errata to IANA.

I think maintaining conflicting names is a bad idea so, while of
course the expert can do whatever they like, I plan to recommend that
the main listing name for TLV #2 be "IS Reachability TLV" with a
footnote stating that the ISO standard confusingly calls it the same
thing as TLV #6.

Thanks,
Donald

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, mike shand<mshand <at> cisco.com> wrote:
> I agree with Tony.
>
>   Mike
>
> Tony Li wrote:
>>
>> Hi Donald,
>>
>> Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I believe there is a significant error in the IANA listing of IS-IS TLVs
>>> at
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints
>>
>>
>> I confirm the error.  It seems to source from RFC 3359, which initially

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

Donald,

If you want to propose name changes and fix the overloading, that would 
be fine by me.  However, I believe that would properly require an RFC.

Tony

Donald Eastlake wrote:
> OK, I'll send in an errata to IANA.
> 
> I think maintaining conflicting names is a bad idea so, while of
> course the expert can do whatever they like, I plan to recommend that
> the main listing name for TLV #2 be "IS Reachability TLV" with a
> footnote stating that the ISO standard confusingly calls it the same
> thing as TLV #6.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> 
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, mike shand<mshand <at> cisco.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Tony.
>>
>>   Mike
>>
>> Tony Li wrote:
>>> Hi Donald,
>>>
>>> Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>>> Hi,

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

I'd be happy to write an RFC to do this if it seems like it has a
reasonable probability of approval. I'll poke around a bit and see if
there seems to be anything else such a hypothetical "IS-IS TLV
Nomenclature" RFC should do.

Thanks,
Donald

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Tony Li<tony.li <at> tony.li> wrote:
>
> Donald,
>
> If you want to propose name changes and fix the overloading, that would be
> fine by me.  However, I believe that would properly require an RFC.
>
> Tony
>
>
> Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>
>> OK, I'll send in an errata to IANA.
>>
>> I think maintaining conflicting names is a bad idea so, while of
>> course the expert can do whatever they like, I plan to recommend that
>> the main listing name for TLV #2 be "IS Reachability TLV" with a
>> footnote stating that the ISO standard confusingly calls it the same
>> thing as TLV #6.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

I'm not really sure how that would help unless we could get the names 
changed in ISO/IEC 10589 itself. I rather doubt both the ability to do 
that, and the desirability, even if we could.

We would simply be replacing the potential confusion caused by having 
two TLVs with the same name, but different numbers and which are used in 
different PDUs, with the confusion caused by having a TLV (2) which is 
called "Intermediate System Neighbors" in ISO/IEC 10589 (and probably 
much documentation and code based on that) and called "IS reachability 
TLV" in some obscure RFC.

Incidentally this duplicate naming has persisted since the days of 
DECnet PhaseV, where they were both called "Router Neighbors", since 
that is what they are. They contain the information about router (or in 
ISO terms IS) neighbors as is appropriate to the PDU in which they 
appear. Since they had different type numbers and appeared in different 
PDUs, there didn't seem any confusion.

I agree, however, that RFC 3563 is in error and the "name" field therein 
should be changed to match the relevant standard(s).

I haven't done so, but it would be wise to check the remaining names for 
consistency as well.

    Mike

Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I'd be happy to write an RFC to do this if it seems like it has a
> reasonable probability of approval. I'll poke around a bit and see if
> there seems to be anything else such a hypothetical "IS-IS TLV

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

Mike,

mike shand wrote:
> I'm not really sure how that would help unless we could get the names 
> changed in ISO/IEC 10589 itself. I rather doubt both the ability to do 
> that, and the desirability, even if we could.

Having it in an RFC would allow us to submit it to JTC1 on the fast 
track.  We could then also amend the IANA registry in anticipation of 
this being approved.  Please see RFC 3563, section 3.4.2.

> We would simply be replacing the potential confusion caused by having 
> two TLVs with the same name, but different numbers and which are used in 
> different PDUs, with the confusion caused by having a TLV (2) which is 
> called "Intermediate System Neighbors" in ISO/IEC 10589 (and probably 
> much documentation and code based on that) and called "IS reachability 
> TLV" in some obscure RFC.

... and an update of 10589.

Tony

Re: Error in IANA TLVs listing

Tony -

> -----Original Message-----
> From: isis-wg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Tony Li
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:07 PM
> To: Mike Shand (mshand)
> Cc: isis mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Error in IANA TLVs listing
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> mike shand wrote:
> > I'm not really sure how that would help unless we could get the
names
> > changed in ISO/IEC 10589 itself. I rather doubt both the ability to
do
> > that, and the desirability, even if we could.
> 
> 
> Having it in an RFC would allow us to submit it to JTC1 on the fast
> track.

Being one of a small group of folks who actively worked on getting the
most recent ISO 10589 update (2002) out I think I can authoritatively
(and hopefully non-offensively) chuckle at this statement.

Let's save our efforts for something more substantive and settle for

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the IS-IS for IP Internets Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS
	Author(s)	: J. Harrison, J. Berger, M. Bartlett
	Filename	: draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt
	Pages		: 10
	Date		: 2009-9-21
	
This document specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 Traffic
   Engineering information using the IS-IS routing protocol.  The
   described method uses three new TLVs, together with two new sub-TLVs
   of the Extended IS Reachability TLV.  The information distributed
   allows a CSPF algorithm to calculate traffic engineered routes using
   IPv6 addresses.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

_______________________________________________