Skip to main content

OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS) Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-01-23
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2018-12-17
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2018-11-29
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2018-11-09
09 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2018-11-08
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2018-11-08
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2018-11-08
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2018-11-08
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors
2018-11-06
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2018-11-06
09 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2018-11-06
09 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2018-11-05
09 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2018-11-05
09 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2018-11-05
09 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2018-11-05
09 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2018-11-05
09 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2018-11-04
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-11-04
09 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-09.txt
2018-11-04
09 (System) New version approved
2018-11-04
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-11-04
09 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-10-25
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2018-10-25
08 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves a privacy
considerations analysis.  I don't expect there to be anything worrisome …
[Ballot comment]
Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves a privacy
considerations analysis.  I don't expect there to be anything worrisome
here, but some text in the document indicating that the analysis has been
done would be reassuring.
2018-10-25
08 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2018-10-25
08 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2018-10-24
08 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2018-10-24
08 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2018-10-24
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2018-10-24
08 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2018-10-24
08 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2018-10-24
08 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2018-10-24
08 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2018-10-23
08 Martin Vigoureux
[Ballot comment]
Hello,

thank you for this document. I have only one comment which is picking up a typo:

s/a way to advertise and use …
[Ballot comment]
Hello,

thank you for this document. I have only one comment which is picking up a typo:

s/a way to advertise and use and use them for Generalized Multi-/a way to advertise and use them for Generalized Multi-/
2018-10-23
08 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2018-10-17
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2018-10-17
08 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2018-10-16
08 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2018-10-11
08 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-10-25
2018-10-11
08 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2018-10-11
08 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2018-10-11
08 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2018-10-11
08 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2018-10-11
08 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2018-10-11
08 Francis Dupont Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2018-10-11
08 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08.txt
2018-10-11
08 (System) New version approved
2018-10-11
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-10-11
08 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-10-10
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2018-10-10
07 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-07.txt
2018-10-10
07 (System) New version approved
2018-10-10
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-10-10
07 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-10-10
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-10-09
06 Sheng Jiang Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. Sent review to list.
2018-10-09
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-10-09
06 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-06. 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-ospf-lls-interface-id-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Link Local Signalling TLV Identifiers (LLS Types) registry on the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Link Local Signalling (LLS) - Type/Length/Value Identifiers (TLV) registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-lls-tlvs/

The existing, temporary LLS Type 18:

LLS Type: 18
Name: Local Interface Identifier TLV (TEMPORARY - registered 2017-11-21, expires 2018-11-21)
Reference: [ Current-draft ]

will be made permanent and have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2018-10-04
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2018-10-04
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2018-09-27
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2018-09-27
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2018-09-27
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2018-09-27
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2018-09-26
06 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-09-26
06 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, lsr@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-10):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, lsr@ietf.org, Yingzhen Qu
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'OSPF LLS Extensions for Local Interface
ID Advertisement'
  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 2018-10-10. 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


  Every OSPF interface is assigned an identifier, Interface ID, which
  uniquely identifies the interface on the router.  In some cases it is
  useful to know the assigned Interface ID on the remote side of the
  adjacency (Remote Interface ID).

  This draft describes the extensions to OSPF link-local signalling to
  advertise the Local Interface Identifier.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2018-09-26
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-09-26
06 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2018-09-26
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2018-09-26
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2018-09-26
06 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2018-09-26
06 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2018-09-23
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2018-09-23
06 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-06.txt
2018-09-23
06 (System) New version approved
2018-09-23
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-09-23
06 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-09-07
05 Alvaro Retana
=== AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-05 ===


Dear authors:

I just finished reading this document.  I have put some comments inline (below).

The main issue that …
=== AD Review of draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-05 ===


Dear authors:

I just finished reading this document.  I have put some comments inline (below).

The main issue that I have with this document is that it is not clear where the Interface ID comes from.  I think it is important to clearly specify that to achieve consistent and interoperable implementations.

While I am not opposed to this work, the justification (in §2) is weak.  The Abstract says that "in some cases it is useful to know the...Remote Interface ID".  What are those cases?  It would be nice if some applications were mentioned (in the Introduction, for example) -- maybe talk about the parallel link application more prominently.

Do we need to specify how a router can disambiguate parallel links using this new extension?  It may not be obvious to everyone...and there are no other drafts referring to this one (IOW, no other applications are documented).

I'll wait for (at least) some discussion before starting the IETF Last Call.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.


[The line numbers come from idnits.]


...
14 Abstract

16   Every OSPF interface is assigned an identifier, Interface ID, which
17   uniquely identifies the interface on the router.  In some cases it is
18   useful to know the Interface ID assigned by the adjacent router on
19   its side of the adjacency (Remote Interface ID).

[nit] Suggestion: "...useful to know the Remote Interface ID (the assigned Interface ID on the remote side of the adjacency)."


...
80 1.  Introduction

82   Every OSPF interface is assigned an Interface ID, which uniquely
83   identifies the interface on the router.  For example, some
84   implementations MAY be able to use the MIB-II IfIndex [RFC2863] as
85   the Interface ID.

[major] The MAY is out of place because it is only stating a fact (as part of an example). s/MAY/may

87   Local/Remote Interface Identifiers MAY be flooded by OSPF [RFC2328]
88   as defined in [RFC4203].  From the perspective of the advertising

[major] Again, just stating a fact. s/MAY/may

89   router, the Local Interface Identifier is a known value, however the
90   Remote Interface Identifier needs to be learnt before it can be
91   advertised.  [RFC4203] suggests to use TE Link Local LSA [RFC3630] to
92   communicate the Local Interface Identifier to neighbors on the link.
93   Though such mechanism works, it has some drawbacks.

95   This draft proposes an extension to OSPF link-local signalling
96   [RFC5613] to advertise the Local Interface Identifier.

98 2.  Interface ID Exchange using TE Opaque LSA

[nit] This section might flow better as a sub-section of 1.

100   Usage of the Link Local TE Opaque LSA to propagate the Local
101   Interface Identifier to the neighbors on the link is described in
102   [RFC4203].  This mechanism has following problems:

[nit] s/has following problems/has the following problems

[nit] Why are the next 2 paragraphs indented?

104       LSAs can only be flooded over an existing adjacency that is in
105       Exchange state or greater.  The adjacency state machine progresses
106       independently on each side of the adjacency and, as such, may
107       reach the Full state on one side before the TE Link Opaque LSA
108       arrives.  The consequence is that link can be initially advertised
109       without the Remote Interface Identifier.  Later, when the TE Link
110       Opaque LSA arrives, the link must be advertised again, this time
111       with the valid Remote Interface Identifier.  Implementations may
112       choose to wait before advertising the link, but there is no
113       guarantee that the neighbor will ever advertise the TE Link Opaque
114       LSA with the Interface Identifier.  In summary, the existing
115       mechanism does not guarantee that the Remote Interface Identifier
116       is known at the time the link is advertised.

[nit] LLS is optional...so it is not guaranteed either.

118       The TE Opaque LSA is defined for MPLS Traffic Engineering, but the
119       knowledge of the Remote Interface Identifier is useful also for
120       cases where MPLS TE is not used.  One example is the lack of a
121       valid 2-way connectivity check for parallel point-to-point links
122       between OSPF routers.

124 3.  Interface ID Exchange using OSPF LLS

126   To address the problems described earlier and to allow the Interface
127   Identifier exchange to be part of the neighbor discovery process, we
128   propose to extend OSPF link-local signalling to advertise the Local
129   Interface Identifier in OSPF Hello packets.

[major] Does having the "exchange to be part of the neighbor discovery process" mean that this TLV should only be attacked to Hellos?  What should the router do if the TLV is received in a DD packet?

131 3.1.  Local Interface Identifier TLV

...
150       Local Interface Identifier: The value of the local Interface
151       Identifier.

[major] Where does the interface id come from?  Will it always be 32 bits long?  Is the assumption that it is the ifIndex?

153   Local Interface Identifier TLV signalling using LLS is applicable to
154   all OSPF interface types other than virtual links.

156 4.  Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203

158   Implementations which support Local Interface ID signalling using LLS
159   MUST prefer the Local Interface ID value received through LLS over
160   the value received through Link Local TE Opaque LSA if both are
161   received from the same OSPF router.

163   Implementations which support Local Interface ID signalling via Link
164   Local TE Opaque LSA MAY continue to do so to ensure backward
165   compatibility.  If they also support Local Interface ID signalling
166   using LLS as described herein, they SHOULD signal the same Local
167   Interface ID via both mechanisms.

[major] The first sentence applies to supporting both mechanisms, right?  IOW, it is meant if Local Interface ID signaling via Link Local TE Opaque LSA is supported *in addition to* the new LLS mechanism.  Please be clear. [I'm asking because this document can't standardize the behavior if *only* the Local Interface ID signalling via Link Local TE Opaque LSA is supported.]

[major] Using SHOULD doesn't guarantee backwards compatibility.  Why isn't that a MUST?

...
176 5.  IANA Considerations

...
182   Following values is allocated:

[nit] s/values/value

184   o 18 - Local Interface Identifier TLV

186 6.  Security Considerations

188   The security considerations for "OSPF Link-Local Signaling" [RFC5613]
189   also apply to the Local Interface Identifier TLV described herein.
190   The current usage of a neighbor's Local Interface Identifier is to
191   disambiguate parallel links between OSPF routers.  Hence,
192   modification of the advertised Local Interface Identifier TLV may
193   result in the wrong neighbor interface identifier being advertised in
194   the OSPFv2 Extended Link LSA [RFC8379] and could prevent the link
195   from being used.  If authentication is being used in the OSPF routing
196   domain [RFC5709], then the Cryptographic Authentication TLV [RFC5613]
197   SHOULD also be used to protect that contents of the Link-Local
198   Signaling (LLS) block.

[minor] Is the reference to rfc8379 correct?

[major] Why only SHOULD?  IOW, if authentication is being used, why wouldn't an operator not want to also protect the LLS block?

200   Implementations must assure that malformed LLS TLVs and Sub-TLVs
201   permutations do not result in errors which cause hard OSPF failures.

[major] What does this last paragraph mean?  Any why is it not a MUST (instead of must).

203 7.  Contributors

[nit] Empty section.
2018-09-07
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2018-08-31
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2018-08-31
05 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
2018-07-18
05 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-05.txt
2018-07-18
05 (System) New version approved
2018-07-18
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-07-18
05 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-07-09
04 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    …
(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?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the
      title page header.

(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:

      This draft proposes to extend OSPF link-local signaling to advertise
      the local interface identifier in OSPF Hello packets. The Local
      Interface Identifier TLV is proposed to carry the value of the
      local interface identifier.
     
Working Group Summary:
     
      There was initially some contention as to whether interface ID
      discovery via OSPFv2 LLS was required given that the interface ID
      can be advertised via OSPF GMPLS TE extensions [RFC4203]. However,
      given that the advantages of fewer LSAs, discovery concurrent with
      neighbor discovery, and incompatibilities with implementations
      adding nodes to the TE topology, the consensus was to advance this
      simple mechanism. Additionally, both IS-IS and OSPFv3 have similar
      hello-based interface ID discovery.


Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document for more than 1 year and has had
      several good reviews. The authors have been very responsive to
      comments and I believe the document is ready for publication.

Personnel:

      Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(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 has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. The document
    shepherd fully believes that the document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

      No.

(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.

(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.

      None.

(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?

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

    NA.

(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?

      There is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(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.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

    IDNITS output:

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document contains RFC2119-like boilerplate, but doesn't seem to
    mention RFC 2119.  The boilerplate contains a reference [BCP14], but that
    reference does not seem to mention RFC 2119 either.

  -- The document date (July 1, 2018) is 7 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'ISO10589' is defined on line 200, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text
    '[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization, "Intermed...'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BCP14'

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589'


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please fix the nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

      Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
    normative or informative?

      Yes.

(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?
 
      No.

(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.

(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.

      No.

(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).

    The IANA considerations section is clear and early allocation have
    been made for the requested code points.

(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.

    Not applicable.

(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.

      Not applicable.
2018-07-09
04 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2018-07-09
04 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2018-07-09
04 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-07-09
04 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-07-08
04 Yingzhen Qu Changed document writeup
2018-07-08
04 Yingzhen Qu Changed document writeup
2018-07-08
04 Yingzhen Qu Changed document writeup
2018-07-01
04 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-04.txt
2018-07-01
04 (System) New version approved
2018-07-01
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-07-01
04 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-06-29
03 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Loa Andersson.
2018-06-20
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson
2018-06-20
03 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Loa Andersson
2018-06-19
03 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2018-06-19
03 Acee Lindem Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2018-06-19
03 Acee Lindem Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2018-06-19
03 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-03.txt
2018-06-19
03 (System) New version approved
2018-06-19
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-06-19
03 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-06-18
02 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
2018-06-18
02 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Yingzhen Qu
2018-06-18
02 Acee Lindem Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-06-18
02 Acee Lindem Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-05-15
02 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-02.txt
2018-05-15
02 (System) New version approved
2018-05-15
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2018-05-15
02 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2018-03-20
01 Christian Hopps Added to session: IETF-101: lsr  Wed-0930
2018-02-28
01 Cindy Morgan Notification list changed to none
2018-02-28
01 Cindy Morgan Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF)
2017-11-20
01 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-01.txt
2017-11-20
01 (System) New version approved
2017-11-20
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Peter Psenak , Padma Pillay-Esnault , Wim Henderickx , Ketan Talaulikar
2017-11-20
01 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2017-07-07
00 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-ppsenak-ospf-lls-interface-id instead of None
2017-05-24
00 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00.txt
2017-05-24
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2017-05-24
00 Peter Psenak Set submitter to "Peter Psenak ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ospf-chairs@ietf.org
2017-05-24
00 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision