Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-08-04
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-07-07
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-04-21
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2021-04-14
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2020-06-08
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-06-08
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-06-08
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-06-05
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-06-01
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2020-06-01
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-06-01
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-06-01
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-15.txt |
2020-06-01
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-01
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Matthew Bocci , Stephane Litkowski , Xiaohu Xu , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini |
2020-06-01
|
15 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-31
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point that were left after that, as well as … [Ballot comment] Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point that were left after that, as well as my comments. |
2020-05-31
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-05-28
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-05-28
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-05-28
|
14 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-14.txt |
2020-05-28
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-28
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Matthew Bocci , Sriganesh Kini |
2020-05-28
|
14 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-21
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-05-20
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-05-20
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I wasn't clear on where the thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the … [Ballot comment] I wasn't clear on where the thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking point. OLD If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. NEW If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported. Not sure if that matches the intent though. |
2020-05-20
|
13 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-05-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-05-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-05-20
|
13 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-05-19
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I have a question about the scope of some normative language, which may or may not be problematic but I'm too ignorant of … [Ballot discuss] I have a question about the scope of some normative language, which may or may not be problematic but I'm too ignorant of OSPF details to be able to answer myself. In Section 3 we say that: When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between connected areas it MUST preserve the ELC setting. My undesrtanding is that it's normal operation for an ABR to distribution information about prefixes and such between areas, and in particular that an ABR does not necessarily need to know the semantic details of every bit of information being distributed in that fashion. So, I am imagining a scenario where some routers in both areas advertise/understand the ELC flag but the ABR between them does not implement this spec. What would happen in such a scenario? If the ABR is still expected to distribute the ELC setting without change, isn't that just a core requirement from the respective OSPF specs, as opposed to a new requirement imposed by this spec (which, in this scenario, the ABR is not claiming to adhere to anyway)? There is perhaps a similar question about the ASBR guidance, though when doing cross-protocol signalling there is a more clear need for the ASBR to understand the semantics of the flags it is redistributing (and it's only a "SHOULD"). |
2020-05-19
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1 The abstract is pretty explicit that "this draft defines" both ELC and ERLD signaling capabilities, but this section only has a … [Ballot comment] Section 1 The abstract is pretty explicit that "this draft defines" both ELC and ERLD signaling capabilities, but this section only has a clear statement for the ELC. Should we put something at the end of the last paragraph about "this document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3"? In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be side note(?): I don't know that SR-MPLS is so popular so as to be privileged as the only example given for LSP usage. If we instead talked about using IGPs to signal labels, this selection would seem less surprising to me. Section 3 If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. Do we want to say anything about (not) advertising the ELC for other prefixes? Section 7 Should we say anything about considerations for redistributing ELC/ERLD information at the ASBR with respect to exposing "internal information" to external parties? This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752], [RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662], RFC 8662's security considerations have a pretty hard dependency on RFC 6790's security considerations; it might be worth mentioning 6790 directly in this list as well. [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this document. Could we also have a brief note that the (respective) OSPF security mechanisms serve to protect the ELC/ERLD information? Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress node. This is what happens when the E flag should not be set but is erroneously set. Should we also say what happens if we should set the E flag but erroneously clear it (e.g., that poor or no load-balancing may occur)? Section 8 I do see the note in the shepherd writeup about the sixth author (thank you!); if we're already breaking through the 5-author limit, did we consider making those who "should be considered as co-authors" listed as co-authors? Section 10.2 It's slightly surprising to see the core OSPF protocols only listed as informative, but I can see how they are to be considered "basic specifications" in the vein of https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ |
2020-05-19
|
13 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-05-19
|
13 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-05-19
|
13 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, This is a straight forward document, thanks. Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement? If so, is … [Ballot comment] Hi, This is a straight forward document, thanks. Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement? If so, is that already being worked or, or planned work for the WG? Regards, Rob |
2020-05-19
|
13 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-05-16
|
13 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "(e.g., SR-MPLS" is missing a closing parenthesis [ section 3 ] * "...unless all of … [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "(e.g., SR-MPLS" is missing a closing parenthesis [ section 3 ] * "...unless all of its interfaces...":" do management interfaces, or other interfaces over which no forwarding is taking place, count in this definition of "all"? If not, does this text need to be tightened or is this just one of those things all implementers will naturally figure out? (I'm actually betting this is just something readers will intuit.) |
2020-05-16
|
13 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-05-14
|
13 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-05-14
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Nit: “ When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other … [Ballot comment] Nit: “ When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol, it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix.“ S/the /OSPF/OSPF/. S/for the prefix/for the prefix (if it exists)/ — some protocols will not have / carry the ELC. Apologies if I missed it, but I didn’t see discussion on *exporting* ELC into other protocols... |
2020-05-14
|
13 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-05-11
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. Please find below one non-blocking COMMENTs and two … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read. Please find below one non-blocking COMMENTs and two NITs. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENT == For my own curiosity, is there a possibility that a router receives conflicting node capability via OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 (assuming that both are running over the same network and using the same router-ID over OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) ? == NITS == -- section 4 -- The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-) -- Sections 3 & 4 -- Is there a meaningful difference between the "advertizing" of section 3 and the "signaling" of section 4? |
2020-05-11
|
13 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-05-06
|
13 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list. |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] As with the IS-IS document, I assume the presence of six authors, above our usual limit of five, was approved by your AD. … [Ballot comment] As with the IS-IS document, I assume the presence of six authors, above our usual limit of five, was approved by your AD. I agree with Barry's point that this document and the IS-IS document could easily have been combined. Even some of the syntactical things he corrected are present in both documents. When would you ever not do what the two SHOULDs in Section 3 say? |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] — Section 1 — In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be Nit: you need a … [Ballot comment] — Section 1 — In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to Nit: this needs a comma after the citation. — Section 3 — When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between Nit: the abbreviation “ABR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s no reason to include it. — Section 3.1 — Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field. Nit: hyphenate “one-octet” as a compound modifier. — Section 4 — The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]. Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF document? There does seem to be so much common text between that document and this one that I really don’t understand why these (the IS-IS and OSPF signaling) were not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home. |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-05-21 |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-05-05
|
13 | Dhruv Dhody | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list. |
2020-05-05
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-05-04
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-05-04
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13. 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-mpls-elc-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ the existing early registration for: Value: 0x20 Description: ELC-flag will be made permanent, its name changed to E-Flag and the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Value: 0x20 Description: E-Flag (ELC Flag) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits) registry on the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ the existing early registration for: Value: 0x40 Description: ELC-bit will be made permanent, have its name changed to E-Flag, and have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ]. Value: 0x40 Description: E-Flag (ELC Flag) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 |
2020-04-30
|
13 | Joseph Salowey | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. Sent review to list. |
2020-04-23
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2020-04-23
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2020-04-23
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2020-04-23
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2020-04-22
|
13 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2020-04-22
|
13 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2020-04-21
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2020-04-21
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , lsr@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF' 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-05-05. 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 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load- balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load- balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2313/ |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was changed |
2020-04-20
|
13 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-04-17
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-04-17
|
13 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13.txt |
2020-04-17
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-17
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Bocci , Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils |
2020-04-17
|
13 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-28
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | ==== AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10 ==== https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kmiiSQippuhZ3VbPr-S88Ga3Oyw/ |
2020-02-28
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2020-02-28
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | This document now replaces draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld instead of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc |
2020-02-26
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-02-26
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2019-10-25
|
12 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12.txt |
2019-10-25
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-25
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Bocci , Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu |
2019-10-25
|
12 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-24
|
11 | 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 document specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings Personnel: Acee Lindem 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 LSR mailing list. Additionally, the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency with other OSPF RFCs. 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. Yes - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc (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. Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the RFC 8174 reference. (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. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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 allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4 (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 new registries are required. (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. |
2019-10-24
|
11 | Acee Lindem | This document now replaces draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc instead of None |
2019-10-23
|
11 | 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 document specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings Personnel: Acee Lindem 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 LSR mailing list. Additionally, the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency with other OSPF RFCs. 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. No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure. (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. Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the RFC 8174 reference. (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. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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 allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4 (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 new registries are required. (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. |
2019-10-23
|
11 | 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 document specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings Personnel: Acee Lindem 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. Additionally, the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency with other OSPF RFCs. 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. No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure. (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. Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the RFC 8174 reference. (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. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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 allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4 (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 new registries are required. (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. |
2019-10-23
|
11 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-10-23
|
11 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2019-10-23
|
11 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-10-23
|
11 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-23
|
11 | 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 document specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing. Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476. Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs is specified. Working Group Summary: The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However, a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth author was added. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready for publication. There have also been several side meetings Personnel: Acee Lindem 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. Additionally, the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency with other OSPF RFCs. 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. No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure. (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. Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the RFC 8174 reference. (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. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently. (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 allocations have been made for the requested code points. https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4 (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 new registries are required. (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. |
2019-10-23
|
11 | Acee Lindem | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-10-23
|
11 | Acee Lindem | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-10-21
|
11 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-11.txt |
2019-10-21
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-21
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu |
2019-10-21
|
11 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-04
|
10 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-10.txt |
2019-10-04
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-04
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski |
2019-10-04
|
10 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-12
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list. |
2019-09-03
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2019-09-03
|
09 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem |
2019-09-03
|
09 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09.txt |
2019-09-03
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-03
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Stephane Litkowski |
2019-09-03
|
09 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-30
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2019-08-30
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2019-08-30
|
08 | Acee Lindem | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2019-05-13
|
08 | Peter Psenak | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08.txt |
2019-05-13
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-13
|
08 | (System) | lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski |
2019-05-13
|
08 | Peter Psenak | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-28
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-09-24
|
07 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07.txt |
2018-09-24
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-24
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Siva Sivabalan , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-09-24
|
07 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-01
|
06 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-06.txt |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Xiaohu Xu , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski |
2018-08-01
|
06 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2018-07-16
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-02-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to none |
2018-02-28
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF) |
2018-01-03
|
05 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-05.txt |
2018-01-03
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-03
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , ospf-chairs@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski |
2018-01-03
|
05 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-03
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-11-30
|
04 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-04.txt |
2016-11-30
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-30
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Siva Sivabalan" , "Sriganesh Kini" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Xiaohu Xu" , "Stephane Litkowski" |
2016-11-30
|
04 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-18
|
03 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03.txt |
2016-10-18
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-18
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Sriganesh Kini" , "Siva Sivabalan" , "Xiaohu Xu" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Clarence Filsfils" , ospf-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-10-18
|
02 | Xiaohu Xu | Uploaded new revision |
2016-05-04
|
02 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-02.txt |
2015-11-10
|
01 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-01.txt |
2015-04-20
|
00 | Xiaohu Xu | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-00.txt |