<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.6.14 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->


<!DOCTYPE rfc  [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">

<!ENTITY RFC5029 SYSTEM "https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5029.xml">
]>


<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-li-lsr-labv-registration-01" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="5029">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Link-Attribute Bit Values Registration">Revision to Registration Procedures for IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values</title>

    <author initials="T." surname="Li" fullname="Tony Li">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <email>tony.li@tony.li</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2024" month="April" day="23"/>

    
    
    

    <abstract>


<t>RFC 5029, "Definition of an IS-IS Link Attribute Sub-TLV", defines a
registry for "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values".  This
document changes the registration procedure for that registry from
"Standards Action" to "Expert Review".</t>



    </abstract>



  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="introduction"><name>Introduction</name>

<t><xref target="RFC5029"/> defines the "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit Values"
registry and specifies a registration procedure of "Standards
Action". In practice, this registration procedure is unnecessarily
restrictive, as it prevents allocation of bits to experimental
protocols, which in turn increases the risk of conflicts introduced by
use of unregistered code points (so-called "code point squatting").</t>

<t>Accordingly, this document changes the registration procedure for the
registry, as described in <xref target="IANA"/>.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="IANA"><name>IANA Considerations</name>

<t>The registration procedure for the "IS-IS Neighbor Link-Attribute Bit
Values" registry is changed to be "Expert Review".</t>

</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security Considerations</name>

<t>This document does not affect the security issues discussed in RFC
5029.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgements"><name>Acknowledgements</name>

<t>The author would like to thank John Scudder for his contributions.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>


    <references title='Normative References'>

&RFC5029;


    </references>




  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>

