Network Working Group A. Zinin
Request for Comments: 3563 Alcatel
Category: Informational July 2003 Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC
Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 (JTC1/SC6) on
IS-IS Routing Protocol Development
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document contains the text of the agreement signed between
ISOC/IETF and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 regarding cooperative development of
the IS-IS routing protocol. The agreement includes definitions of
the related work scopes for the two organizations, request for
creation and maintenance of an IS-IS registry by IANA, as well as
Annexe 1 to 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): IS-IS Routing Protocols
This annexe records the agreed collaborative process for the further
development and standardisation of the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) intra-domain routing protocol (ISO/IEC
The IS-IS intra-domain routing protocols, originally developed in
ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC6, have been successfully deployed in the Internet for
ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC6 is the JTC1 sub-committee which has responsibility
for maintenance of the IS-IS standard (ISO/IEC 10589).
The IS-IS Working Group of the IETF is chartered to develop
extensions to the IS-IS protocol to be used within the scope of the
This addendum documents the agreed process for the future development
of IS-IS by both organizations.
2.1 Core IS-IS Mechanisms
Core IS-IS Mechanisms are subsystems with associated algorithms, data
structures, and PDU formats as specified in (ISO/IEC 10589),
constituting the core of the IS-IS protocol and including the
a) Framework of PDU formats, including TLVs defined in 
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
h) Topology abstraction defined in 
2.2 Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions:
Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions are extensions to the IS-IS
protocol that are within the work scope of the IETF including any
routing or packet forwarding technology that the IETF decides to work
on in the future (such as IPv4 or IPv6 unicast and multicast routing,
MPLS, MPLS Traffic Engineering, or Generalized MPLS), and:
a) do not modify the Core IS-IS Mechanisms and do not change
operation of non-IP or affect compatibility with non-IP and dual
implementations of IS-IS, or
b) add supplementary mechanisms to the Core IS-IS Mechanisms, are not
generally applicable to non-IP implementations of IS-IS, and do
not change operation of non-IP or affect compatibility with non-IP
and dual implementations of IS-IS, or
c) are de facto implementation agreements that are not generally
applicable to non-IP implementations of IS-IS.
Note that the introduction of new TLVs or sub-TLVs that do not modify
the algorithms of the Core Mechanisms in a way that would affect
interoperability with non-IP or dual implementations of IS-IS is not
considered to be a modification to the Core IS-IS Mechanisms.
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
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
3.1 Separation of IS-IS Work Scope
JTC1 SHALL NOT and IETF MAY (subject to the IETF standards process)
standardize any Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions.
Any IS-IS Extensions produced within the IETF that require
standardization, but cannot be identified as Internet-specific per
section 2.2 of this document SHOULD be submitted for standardization
to JTC1 (see section 3.3.2). IETF SHALL NOT publish documents
describing such IS-IS extensions other than as Informational RFCs.
IS-IS extensions submitted from the IETF to JTC1 will be processed
under the JTC1 fast track procedure. To ensure the quality of such
submissions, IETF SHALL apply to them the procedures for Proposed
Standard submission according to [RFC2026] (even though these
documents will not be published as standards-track IETF RFCs).
In the situations where it is not clear from the provisions of this
document whether a specific protocol extension should be standardized
within the IETF or within JTC1, the decisions will be made on a case-
by-case basis and will be based on the agreement between the two
organizations reached via a discussion between the IETF Routing Area
Directors or the IETF liaison to JTC1/SC6 (who will reflect 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 intended to be published as IETF
standards track RFCs MUST include a section explaining why they
qualify to be considered 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 the registry service for IS-IS, IANA is requested
to temporarily maintain such a registry as described below. Upon
notification from JTC1, the registry management authority (i.e.,
value allocation) will be transferred to JTC1. IANA MAY still retain
the registry for informational purposes and keep updating it based on
information provided by JTC1.
IANA has created and currently maintains a registry for IS-IS TLV
codepoints. The range of values is 0-255. Initial state of the
registry should be synchronized with [RFC3359]. Allocation of values
in the registry has to be approved by the designated expert assigned
by the IESG. IETF SHALL keep JTC1/SC6 informed of TLV codepoint
values allocated, and JTC1/SC6 SHALL refer allocation requests
arising within JTC1 constituencies to the IANA registry process.
3.3.2 IETF-specific Registries
IETF MAY request IANA to maintain IS-IS-related registries if those
are required to maintain name spaces internal to Internet-specific
3.4 Collaboration Guidelines
3.4.1 Learning About New Work
IETF SHALL inform the chairman and secretariat of ISO JTC 1/SC 6
about new IS-IS-related work items.
JTC1/SC6 SHALL inform the IETF Routing Area directors and ISIS WG
chairs about new IS-IS-related work items. Communication MAY be
enacted directly using electronic mail, or may be conducted via
appointed SC6 / IETF liaison representatives.
3.4.2 Submitting IETF Documents to JTC1
As a class A liaison organisation to JTC1, the Internet Society may
submit existing standards for adoption as International Standards of
the ISO, using the Fast-Track procedure.
IS-IS extensions developed by IETF and intended for standardization
in JTC1 according to section 3.1 SHOULD therefore be submitted by one
of the IETF ISIS WG chairs, or an IETF Routing Area director, sending
an email message to the secretariat of ISO JTC 1 specifying the
number of the Informational RFC containing the specification (the
document MUST have been published as an RFC at the time of
submission) and requesting fast-track processing by JTC1. The full
text of the specification is then available using the following URL:
where "NNNN" is the number of the RFC being submitted. The IETF
SHOULD also recommend that JTC1 assign the document to JTC1/SC6, and
SHOULD also submit to JTC1 the name of an individual who is prepared
to serve as project editor for the fast-track document.
3.4.3 Submitting JTC1 Documents to IETF
It is possible to make JTC1 standards specifications available for
informational purposes of the IETF community by submitting the text
of the specification as an Internet Draft and requesting the RFC
Editor to publish the document as an Informational RFC. See sections
4.2.2 and 7 of [RFC2026] for more information. Guidelines for
Internet Draft preparation are given in [ID-GUIDE].
3.4.4 Mutual Document Review
Members of ISO JTC 1/SC 6 are welcome to review any IS-IS-related
IETF document (all IETF documents are publicly available at the IETF
web site) and submit their comments to the ISIS WG (by sending an
for ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 for the Internet Society
Original signed by Original signed by
Jack Houldsworth Harald Alvestrand
Date: March 3, 2003 Date: March 19, 2003
6. Security Considerations
This type of non-protocol document does not directly affect the
security of the Internet.
7. Author's Address
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
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
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.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the