The involvement of different standards bodies raises a plethora of issues. Because the IETF is not the “owner” of IS-IS, none of its documents go on the IETF standards track process. The standards track is a multi-year process that ensures protocol maturity and interoperability between different vendors. All the different stages of the maturity process is documented as RFCs and at the end of the standards track process there is promotion of the protocol to an Internet Standard, which not many documents achieve. As soon as the Internet Standard status is reached, the document becomes a normative reference in the ITU sense. Although the ITU’s standards track process may take several years, one could argue that the ITU is much faster in this respect. The difference between the two standardization bodies is how they approach and handle standardization. In the IETF, things are pretty much evolution driven: the IETF deﬁnes a problem, Internet drafts get published and in many cases the equipment vendors ship software based on the Internet drafts, which are at this point not normative references at all. This process has the advan- tage of getting a new IS-IS feature deployed quickly, sometimes within six months (at the risk of changing the software several times unless the Internet draft has matured). In the ITU, there is much more emphasis on getting the ﬁrst document ﬂawless through rigid reviews and (of course) plenty of time. The ITU believes that speciﬁcations have to be ﬁnalized before they can be used in actual product shipments. While that approach is much more “clean slate”, it runs the risk of missing the market during all these time- consuming review cycles. Meanwhile, the ITU has practically resigned from the task of evolving IS-IS. All of the work is done in the IETF. But because the ITU still formally owns the base protocol, the IETF must not publish any IS-IS-related RFCs as standards track RFCs, but rather as informational RFCs. Informational RFCs do not have the status of a normative speciﬁcation – they are just supposed to make sure that things are documented. However, there is a paradox in that the ISIS-WG is the only valid source for further IS-IS development, and yet has to publish all IS-IS extensions as non-normative documents, the informational RFCs. Moreover, the ITU refers to the published IS-IS informational RFCs, and therefore is blessing the “informational” RFCs as normative references!