Subject: [Isis-wg] for a IS-IS conflict .

From: "Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:31:15 +0530

hi,
     Now i find a conflict for IS-IS PDU authentication Code  value defined .In ISO 10589 ,1998. which inidcate this code value should be 10, but in RFC 1195 ,which define this value to be 133 .so what is on earth the correct value  ? or  maybe my understanding is not correct ? Pls give me advice .
       Thanks ,anyway !

---

From: Mike Shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 11:27:39 +0000

At 15:31 01/02/2000 +0530, Jorge wrote:
>hi,
>      Now i find a conflict for IS-IS PDU authentication Code  value 
> defined .In ISO 10589 ,1998. which inidcate this code value should be 10, 
> but in RFC 1195 ,which define this value to be 133 .so what is on earth 
> the correct value  ? or  maybe my understanding is not correct ? Pls give 
> me advice .
>        Thanks ,anyway !

I'm pretty sure 10 is the one that is used. RFC 1195 was written when 10589 
was only at DIS stage, and there were various technical changes between DIS 
and IS. One of those was the introduction of the authentication TLV using 
10 (i.e. the next unused TLV code point). This was identical in 
functionality to that which had been put in RFC 1195. So I think the 133 
one is now unused.

There was a draft (authored by Ross Callon and Chris Gunner) put out some 
time later (around 1994 I think) which withdrew the 133 value (and 
incidentally made some improvements to the L1 L2 propagation mechanisms), 
but by that time the IETF had lost interest in IS-IS and so it never got 
progressed.

         Mike

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: "Lester Ginsberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:07:17 -0800 (PST)

Since several people over the last few weeks - not just Jorge - have
referenced the 1998 Second Edition Draft of ISO 10589 as if it were a
standard I feel it is time to reiterate the following:

The 1998 Second Edition Draft is NOT an approved standard. It is a
draft with lots of problems. It was posted to this group as a means of 
getting reviewed. It should NOT be used as a reference for validating
protocol implementations. Hopefully, someday, there will be a new
Second Edition Draft which resolves these problems - until then stick
with the 1992 edition.

  Les

---

From: Mike Shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 15:30:17 +0000

>Second Edition Draft which resolves these problems - until then stick

Absolutely. The so called second edition is plain WRONG in a number of 
critical places. However, the authentication code value in question appears 
equally in the 1992 version.

But I guess this raises an interesting question about how one is supposed 
to decide whether to believe ISO/IEC 10589:1992 or RFC 1195 when they conflict.

         Mike

---

From: "Lester Ginsberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:48:24 -0800 (PST)

> to decide whether to believe ISO/IEC 10589:1992 or RFC 1195 when they conflict.

This is an example of the potential benefits of an "Integrated
Specification" i.e. a version that combines 10589:1992, defect
reports, RFC 1195, traffic engineering extensions into a single
document or aligned collection of documents.

This notion is part of a proposed agenda within ISO SC6/WG7 and which
has received some informal verbal support from both ISO and IETF
officialdom. Obviously such an effort requires participation from both 
communities. I hope in the coming months that this agenda "sees the
light of day" and that when contemplating such an agenda that Mike's
question/point is considered.

  Les

---

From: Ran Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 13:39:40 -0500

My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that IAB/IESG has sent a
formal liaison to ISO requesting that ISO ISIS WG be re-activated.  I'm
less clear on whether ISO sent a formal reply.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:32:19 -0800

|  	My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that IAB/IESG has sent a
|  formal liaison to ISO requesting that ISO ISIS WG be re-activated.  I'm
|  less clear on whether ISO sent a formal reply.

My understanding is that we (IETF) asked for a liaison to TC6, which was
granted.  However, the lack of interest in the ISO makes the communication
rather one-sided.

Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:34:19 -0800

|  But I guess this raises an interesting question about how one is supposed 
|  to decide whether to believe ISO/IEC 10589:1992 or RFC 1195 when they conflict.

Well, one thing that WE can do is to issue updates that supersede RFC 1195.

For example, on the TLV number, we can edict that we use code point 10 now.

Tony