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 |