Skip to main content

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12 Wesley Eddy Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Martin Stiemerling Last Call TSVART review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