Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-12-05
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-11-18
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-10-04
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-09-12
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-09-11
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-09-11
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-09-11
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-09-10
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-09-03
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-09-03
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-09-03
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-09-02
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-08-30
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-08-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-08-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-08-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-08-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-08-30
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2019-08-27
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS. |
2019-08-27
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alissa Cooper has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-08-09
|
04 | Ines Robles | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ines Robles. |
2019-08-08
|
04 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04.txt |
2019-08-08
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-08
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sasha Vainshtein , Carlos Pignataro , Faisal Iqbal , Nagendra Kumar |
2019-08-08
|
04 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles |
2019-08-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles |
2019-08-08
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. |
2019-08-08
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-08-08
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-08-08
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2019-08-08
|
03 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-03.txt |
2019-08-08
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sasha Vainshtein , Carlos Pignataro , Faisal Iqbal , Nagendra Kumar |
2019-08-08
|
03 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-08
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Benjamin Kaduk | |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot discuss] This should be very easy to clear up * Section 4.3 Since this whole draft is about clarifying Sub-TLV length calculations I think … [Ballot discuss] This should be very easy to clear up * Section 4.3 Since this whole draft is about clarifying Sub-TLV length calculations I think this section needs to cover the length calculation for the unnumbered Adjacency Type (Adj. Type 0 in RFC8287). |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Good catch from the Gen-Art review, this needs to be fixed. |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-08-07
|
02 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2019-08-06
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-08-06
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART reviewer caught this error which seems important to fix: Figure of Section 4.2: Type = 35 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix SID) ---> Type … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART reviewer caught this error which seems important to fix: Figure of Section 4.2: Type = 35 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix SID) ---> Type = 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix SID) |
2019-08-06
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Please respond to the rest of the Gen-ART review. |
2019-08-06
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-08-05
|
02 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 4, per “The figures in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8287] are replaced by the below figures in … [Ballot comment] ** Section 4, per “The figures in section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of [RFC8287] are replaced by the below figures in section 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 respectively”: -- none of the diagram in Section 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3 are explicitly labeled as figures -- section 4.3 contains two “figures” (one is called a table in the text and the other has no designation). Which one of these is supposed to be a replacement for RFC8287 Section 5.3? ** Section 4.3. Assuming that the second figure is the replacement for RFC8287’s Section 5.3 figure, the length is still confusing to me. The figure in this draft appears to be a specific instance of the populated Sub-TLV. The existing figure in RFC8287 appears to be a generic depiction. The new figure doesn’t appear to be relevant (or presented incorrect information) if Adj Type = 1 and Protocol = 1 (for example). ** Section 4.3. Typo. s/Protocol =0/Protocol = 0/ ** Section 6. Recommend clarifying that there are no additional security considerations (not that there aren’t any). s/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any security considerations/This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations/ |
2019-08-05
|
02 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-08-05
|
02 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-08-02
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-08-02
|
02 | Kyle Rose | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Kyle Rose. Sent review to list. |
2019-08-02
|
02 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-07-31
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-08 |
2019-07-31
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-07-31
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2019-07-31
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-07-31
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-07-31
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-07-31
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-07-30
|
02 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. |
2019-07-26
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-07-26
|
02 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. The IANA Functions Operator requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. IANA Question --> IANA understands that this document updates and clarifies RFC8287. Should any reference in the Adjacency Type in the IGP-Adjacency Segment ID registry on the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ be modified to reflect [ RFC-to-be ]? Are there any other references in other registries that should be modified or updated? Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-07-21
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli. Sent review to list. |
2019-07-15
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kyle Rose |
2019-07-15
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kyle Rose |
2019-07-15
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2019-07-15
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joel Jaeggli |
2019-07-11
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles |
2019-07-11
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ines Robles |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-31): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: mpls@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-31): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: mpls@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson , loa@pi.nu Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-07-31. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability issues. This document updates RFC8287 by clarifying the length of each Segment ID Sub-TLVs defined in RFC8287. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-07-10
|
02 | Susan Hares | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list. |
2019-06-21
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2019-06-05
|
02 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2019-06-05
|
02 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2019-06-03
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS working group requests that draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-01 Is published as a Proposed Standard. (1) What type of RFC is being … The MPLS working group requests that draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-01 Is published as a Proposed Standard. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? We request that the document is published as a Proposed Standard, the title page says Standards Track. PS is the right type of RFC as the sole purpose of the document is to update an existing Standards Track RFC, RFC 8287. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability issues. Working Group Summary There were no controversies progressing this document, the support in the working group is solid. Document Quality In this case the question of existing implementations is a bit tricky, the document is a clarification to RFC 8287, of which there are implementations. The problem with the Segment ID Sub-TLV was discovered when preparing inter-op test of RFC 8287. Personnel Document Shepherd: Loa ANdersson Responsible Area Director: Deborah Brungard (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd reviewed this document when the Individual draft was first posted, when the working group adoption poll was issued and at wglc. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews are necessary. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. NO such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. All the authors and contributors has stated on the MPLS WG mailing list that they are unaware of any undisclosed IPRs. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPRs disclosed against this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The support for the document is very strong. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such threats. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document passes nits-tool clean, no other nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviewa required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? This document has only normative regerences. It is the shepherds opinion that no Informative references are required. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All normative regerences are to documents on the standrds track or to BCP (BCP 14). (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Publicaton of this document will update RFC 8287, this is mentioned in the Abstract and discussed in the Introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document does not request any IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No such registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such reviewa required. |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-06-02
|
02 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS working group requests that draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-01 Is published as a Proposed Standard. (1) What type of RFC is being … The MPLS working group requests that draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-01 Is published as a Proposed Standard. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? We request that the document is published as a Proposed Standard, the title page says Standards Track. PS is the right type of RFC as the sole purpose of the document is to update an existing Standards Track RFC, RFC 8287. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability issues. Working Group Summary There were no controversies progressing this document, the support in the working group is solid. Document Quality In this case the question of existing implementations is a bit tricky, the document is a clarification to RFC 8287, of which there are implementations. The problem with the Segment ID Sub-TLV was discovered when preparing inter-op test of RFC 8287. Personnel Document Shepherd: Loa ANdersson Responsible Area Director: Deborah Brungard (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd reviewed this document when the Individual draft was first posted, when the working group adoption poll was issued and at wglc. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews are necessary. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. NO such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. All the authors and contributors has stated on the MPLS WG mailing list that they are unaware of any undisclosed IPRs. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPRs disclosed against this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The support for the document is very strong. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such threats. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document passes nits-tool clean, no other nits found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviewa required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? This document has only normative regerences. It is the shepherds opinion that no Informative references are required. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All normative regerences are to documents on the standrds track or to BCP (BCP 14). (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Publicaton of this document will update RFC 8287, this is mentioned in the Abstract and discussed in the Introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document does not request any IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No such registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such reviewa required. |
2019-05-31
|
02 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02.txt |
2019-05-31
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-31
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sasha Vainshtein , Carlos Pignataro , Faisal Iqbal , Nagendra Kumar |
2019-05-31
|
02 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-25
|
01 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-01.txt |
2019-05-25
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-25
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sasha Vainshtein , Carlos Pignataro , Faisal Iqbal , Nagendra Kumar |
2019-05-25
|
01 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-23
|
00 | Loa Andersson | The authors has promised to do one update after wglc, we are waiting for that. |
2019-05-23
|
00 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2019-05-07
|
00 | Loa Andersson | WGLC ends May 21, 2019. |
2019-05-07
|
00 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-04-30
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Notification list changed to Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> |
2019-04-30
|
00 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Tarek Saad | The I-D was WG adopted. |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Tarek Saad | This document now replaces draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification instead of None |
2019-03-25
|
00 | Nagendra Nainar | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-00.txt |
2019-03-25
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-03-25
|
00 | Nagendra Nainar | Set submitter to "Nagendra Kumar Nainar ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-03-25
|
00 | Nagendra Nainar | Uploaded new revision |