Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-07-05
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-07-02
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-06-26
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-05-22
|
12 | Wesley Eddy | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Martin Stiemerling Last Call TSVART review |
2019-05-22
|
12 | Wesley Eddy | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2019-05-21
|
12 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-05-21
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-05-21
|
12 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-05-20
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions |
2019-05-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-05-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-05-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-05-20
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-05-17
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2019-05-16
|
12 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-12.txt |
2019-05-16
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-16
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2019-05-16
|
12 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-16
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2019-05-16
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-05-16
|
11 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-05-16
|
11 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this: we don’t do applicability statements often enough, and I think they can be quite useful. |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] I appreciate all of the references to the various security considerations in Section 7. My primary question in reading this section was “Does … [Ballot comment] I appreciate all of the references to the various security considerations in Section 7. My primary question in reading this section was “Does the use of PCE in an ACTN introduce any additional vulnerabilities/threats/residual risk and how is this addressed?” as this document was focused on the applicability of PCE in ACTN. (1) I wasn’t sure how [RFC5440] and [RFC6952] were applying specifically to the ACTN use case. (2) I wasn’t sure how to use the guidance in the third paragraph, “As per [RFC8453] …”. It notes that [RFC8453] outlines both needed security properties and threats; and reiterates that [RFC8453] states that ACTN should have “rich security features”. The link and relevance to PCE was not evident. |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-05-15
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-05-14
|
11 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-05-09
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2019-05-06
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-05-03
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-05-16 |
2019-05-03
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2019-05-03
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-05-03
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-05-03
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-05-03
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-04-28
|
11 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef. Sent review to list. |
2019-04-26
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Martin Stiemerling |
2019-04-26
|
11 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Martin Stiemerling |
2019-04-25
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2019-04-25
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2019-04-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2019-04-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2019-04-23
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-04-23
|
11 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
2019-04-22
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2019-04-22
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-03): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: db3546@att.com, Adrian Farrel , draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-03): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: db3546@att.com, Adrian Farrel , draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-05-03. 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 Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function virtualization services. The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a component, application, or network node that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. The PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) that communicate with it over a local API or using the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN framework. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2019-04-19
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-04-06
|
11 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11.txt |
2019-04-06
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-06
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2019-04-06
|
11 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-01
|
10 | Yingzhen Qu | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list. |
2019-03-20
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Yingzhen will do RTG Dir review. |
2019-03-20
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2019-03-15
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2019-03-15
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2019-03-15
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Document Shepherd Write-up draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10 The PCE working group requests that draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn be published as an Informational RFC in the IETF Stream. > (1) What type … Document Shepherd Write-up draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10 The PCE working group requests that draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn be published as an Informational RFC in the IETF Stream. > (1) What type of RFC is being requested? The request is to publish this document as an Informational RFC. This is appropriate because it describes how IETF components and protocols can be used to achieve a specific function, but does not define any new protocol elements. The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page. > (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement > Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. > Technical Summary: Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function virtualization services. The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a component, application, or network node that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. The PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) that communicate with it over a local API or using the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN framework. > Working Group Summary: The WG process has been smooth. At one stage, this work caught up with (or got ahead of) the core ACTN and it had to pause. But now RFCs 8453 and 8454 have been published, and advancing this work is appropriate. WG consensus was reasonable. > Document Quality: This is an Informational document, so implementation is moot. However, there are known to be implementations (product and research) that use the ACTN architecture and contain PCE as key component. > Personnel: Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the Responsible Area Director > Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the > Document Shepherd. The document shepherd reviewed the work a number of times during its development. Most recently, the shepherd conducted a review during WG last call and found the document to be sound (barring a few small issues that the uthors have since addressed). > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns. > (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from > broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, > DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that > took place. No broader review is needed. An OpsDir review would be interesting, and it is expected that one will be commissioned during IETF last call as normal. > (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document > Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she > is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns > whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has > discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to > advance the document, detail those concerns here. No such concerns > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of > BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? This document carries the normal boilerplate concerning IPR and copyright, and all authors are deemed to have agreed to the terms of BCP 78 and BCP 79 by allowing their names to be used on the document. In addition, each author has made a public declaration on the WG mailing list. > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No. > (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The concensus is good. In fact, by the standards of WG last calls, the document is well and widely supported. > (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? No threats or indications. > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. There is one idnits warning of an out-of-date reference. This will be resolved when the XML is re-processed. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such criteria apply. > (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? None such. > (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC > 3967)? No downrefs. > (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any > existing RFCs? No. > (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA > considerations section. This document makes no requests for IANA action. A suitable "null" IANA Considerations section is included. > (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for > future allocations None such. > (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. None required. |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Document Shepherd Write-up draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10 The PCE working group requests that draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn be published as an Informational RFC in the IETF Stream. > (1) What type … Document Shepherd Write-up draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10 The PCE working group requests that draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn be published as an Informational RFC in the IETF Stream. > (1) What type of RFC is being requested? The request is to publish this document as an Informational RFC. This is appropriate because it describes how IETF components and protocols can be used to achieve a specific function, but does not define any new protocol elements. The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page. > (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement > Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. > Technical Summary: Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) refers to the set of virtual network (VN) operations needed to orchestrate, control and manage large-scale multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function virtualization services. The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a component, application, or network node that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph and applying computational constraints. The PCE serves requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) that communicate with it over a local API or using the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document examines the applicability of PCE to the ACTN framework. > Working Group Summary: The WG process has been smooth. At one stage, this work caught up with (or got ahead of) the core ACTN and it had to pause. But now RFCs 8453 and 8454 have been published, and advancing this work is appropriate. WG consensus was reasonable. > Document Quality: This is an Informational document, so implementation is moot. However, there are known to be implementations (product and research) that use the ACTN architecture and contain PCE as key component. > Personnel: Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Document Shepherd Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the Responsible Area Director > Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the > Document Shepherd. The document shepherd reviewed the work a number of times during its development. Most recently, the shepherd conducted a review during WG last call and found the document to be sound (barring a few small issues that the uthors have since addressed). > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such concerns. > (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from > broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, > DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that > took place. No broader review is needed. An OpsDir review would be interesting, and it is expected that one will be commissioned during IETF last call as normal. > (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document > Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she > is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns > whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has > discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to > advance the document, detail those concerns here. No such concerns > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of > BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? This document carries the normal boilerplate concerning IPR and copyright, and all authors are deemed to have agreed to the terms of BCP 78 and BCP 79 by allowing their names to be used on the document. In addition, each author has made a public declaration on the WG mailing list. > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No. > (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others > being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The concensus is good. In fact, by the standards of WG last calls, the document is well and widely supported. > (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? No threats or indications. > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. There is one idnits warning of an out-of-date reference. This will be resolved when the XML is re-processed. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such criteria apply. > (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? None such. > (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC > 3967)? No downrefs. > (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any > existing RFCs? No. > (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA > considerations section. This document makes no requests for IANA action. A suitable "null" IANA Considerations section is included. > (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for > future allocations None such. > (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. None required. |
2019-03-12
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2019-03-07
|
10 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-10.txt |
2019-03-07
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-07
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2019-03-07
|
10 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-07
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-09.txt |
2019-03-07
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-07
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2019-03-07
|
09 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-25
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | New revision needed after WG last call |
2019-02-25
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2019-02-25
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2019-02-21
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Notification list changed to Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> |
2019-02-21
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Document shepherd changed to Adrian Farrel |
2019-02-08
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | IPR poll also started |
2019-02-08
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-12-05
|
08 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-08.txt |
2018-12-05
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-05
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-12-05
|
08 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-22
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-07.txt |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-10-22
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-17
|
06 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-06.txt |
2018-06-17
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-17
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-06-17
|
06 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
05 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-05.txt |
2018-03-05
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-03-05
|
05 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-04.txt |
2018-03-05
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-03-05
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-01
|
03 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-03.txt |
2018-03-01
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-01
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-03-01
|
03 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-28
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-02.txt |
2017-10-28
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-28
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2017-10-28
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-05
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | Marking the individual I-D that this WG draft replaces. |
2017-09-05
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | This document now replaces draft-dhody-pce-applicability-actn instead of None |
2017-06-29
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-01.txt |
2017-06-29
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-06-29
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2017-06-29
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-06-02
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-00.txt |
2017-06-02
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-06-02
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | Set submitter to "Dhruv Dhody ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-06-02
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |