Skip to main content

Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard Ballot has been issued
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard Created "Approve" ballot
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was changed
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from IESG Evaluation
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-04-18
2024-03-10
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-03-05
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-03-04
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-03-04
13 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13, 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.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-03-02
13 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list.
2024-02-28
13 Ben Niven-Jenkins Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. Sent review to list.
2024-02-23
13 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins
2024-02-22
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2024-02-22
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Wes Hardaker
2024-02-20
13 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-02-20
13 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-03-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG
(rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'Topology Independent Fast
Reroute using Segment Routing'
  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 2024-03-05. 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


  This document presents Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast
  Re-route (TI-LFA), aimed at providing protection of node and
  adjacency segments within the Segment Routing (SR) framework.  This
  Fast Re-route (FRR) behavior builds on proven IP-FRR concepts being
  LFAs, remote LFAs (RLFA), and remote LFAs with directed forwarding
  (DLFA).  It extends these concepts to provide guaranteed coverage in
  any two connected networks using a link-state IGP.  A key aspect of
  TI-LFA is the FRR path selection approach establishing protection
  over the expected post-convergence paths from the point of local
  repair, reducing the operational need to control the tie-breaks among
  various FRR options.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3068/





2024-02-20
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard Last call was requested
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard Last call announcement was generated
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard Ballot approval text was generated
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was generated
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2024-02-20
13 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2024-02-19
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did …
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad
  agreement?

It is strongly advocated by a few, but most are relatively silent. However
this is a widely implemented protocol that we have a duty to document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some concern during developmnet  that the post convergence path from the PLR
might not be the actual post convergence path for the actual
traffic. This is now explained in the text as an artifact of the approach.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

There are no threatened appeals

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is a deployed protocol.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

During its development this design has been widely reviewed by experts in the other IETF
techologies that it interacts with.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
  reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The concept and desctiption have already subjected to appropriate
expert review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
    intent?

Standards Track

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, reminded before WGLC started.

There was no discussion on the IPR during the documents progress through the WG.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

To the best of my knowledge.

The document has taken seven year to get to this point and seems to
have settled at this number of authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The only nit is draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo has been published as RFC
9350
, which can be picked up in the inevitable next version.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No they are correct

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are none

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are none.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are none

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is
    discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC
    8126
][11]).

This document makes no IANA requests

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are none.
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-02-02
13 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Responsible AD changed to Jim Guichard
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared.
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Passed WGLC.
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu Tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2024-02-02
13 Yingzhen Qu IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call
2024-01-18
13 Yingzhen Qu IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-01-16
13 Ahmed Bashandy New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13.txt
2024-01-16
13 (System) New version approved
2024-01-16
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2024-01-16
13 Ahmed Bashandy Uploaded new revision
2023-12-17
12 Gyan Mishra Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-12-17
12 Gyan Mishra Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra.
2023-11-23
12 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Gyan Mishra
2023-11-23
12 Gunter Van de Velde Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-11-23
12 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2023-11-17
12 Ahmed Bashandy New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-12.txt
2023-11-17
12 (System) New version approved
2023-11-17
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2023-11-17
12 Ahmed Bashandy Uploaded new revision
2023-08-25
11 Gyan Mishra Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Serious Issues. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. Sent review to list.
2023-07-18
11 Antoine Fressancourt Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Antoine Fressancourt. Sent review to list.
2023-07-06
11 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Antoine Fressancourt
2023-07-06
11 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Salim-Amine ARAM was marked no-response
2023-06-30
11 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-11.txt
2023-06-30
11 (System) New version approved
2023-06-30
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2023-06-30
11 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2023-06-25
10 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Andy Smith.
2023-06-21
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Gyan Mishra
2023-06-21
10 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Early review by OPSDIR to Victor Kuarsingh was marked no-response
2023-05-11
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Wes Hardaker. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-05-05
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Wes Hardaker.
2023-04-27
10 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-10.txt
2023-04-27
10 (System) New version approved
2023-04-27
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2023-04-27
10 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2023-04-07
09 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Salim-Amine ARAM
2023-03-28
09 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh
2023-03-22
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Wes Hardaker
2023-03-20
09 Luc André Burdet Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andy Smith
2023-03-20
09 Yingzhen Qu Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-03-20
09 Yingzhen Qu Requested Early review by OPSDIR
2023-03-20
09 Yingzhen Qu Requested Early review by INTDIR
2023-03-20
09 Yingzhen Qu Requested Early review by SECDIR
2023-03-08
09 Stewart Bryant
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did …
## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad
  agreement?

It is strongly advocated by a few, but most are relatively silent. However
this is a widely implemented protocol that we have a duty to document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was some concern during developmnet  that the post convergence path from the PLR
might not be the actual post convergence path for the actual
traffic. This is now explained in the text as an artifact of the approach.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

There are no threatened appeals

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is a deployed protocol.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

During its development this design has been widely reviewed by experts in the other IETF
techologies that it interacts with.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
  reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The concept and desctiption have already subjected to appropriate
expert review.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
    intent?

Standards Track

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, reminded before WGLC started.

There was no discussion on the IPR during the documents progress through the WG.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

To the best of my knowledge.

The document has taken seven year to get to this point and seems to
have settled at this number of authors.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The only nit is draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo has been published as RFC
9350
, which can be picked up in the inevitable next version.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No they are correct

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There are none

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are none.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

There are none

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is
    discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC
    8126
][11]).

This document makes no IANA requests

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are none.
2022-12-23
09 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-09.txt
2022-12-23
09 Stephane Litkowski New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Stephane Litkowski)
2022-12-23
09 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2022-07-25
08 (System) Document has expired
2022-01-21
08 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-08.txt
2022-01-21
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Stephane Litkowski)
2022-01-21
08 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2021-12-31
07 (System) Document has expired
2021-06-29
07 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-07.txt
2021-06-29
07 (System) New version approved
2021-06-29
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2021-06-29
07 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2021-03-24
06 Jeff Tantsura Notification list changed to stewart.bryant@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-03-24
06 Jeff Tantsura Document shepherd changed to Stewart Bryant
2021-02-01
06 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-06.txt
2021-02-01
06 (System) New version approved
2021-02-01
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Stephane Litkowski , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org
2021-02-01
06 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2020-11-15
05 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-05.txt
2020-11-15
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Stephane Litkowski)
2020-11-15
05 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2020-08-31
04 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-04.txt
2020-08-31
04 (System) New version approved
2020-08-31
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Voyer , Stephane Litkowski , Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Pablo Camarillo , Clarence Filsfils …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel Voyer , Stephane Litkowski , Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Pablo Camarillo , Clarence Filsfils , Pierre Francois , Francois Clad
2020-08-31
04 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2020-03-05
03 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-03.txt
2020-03-05
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Stephane Litkowski)
2020-03-05
03 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2020-01-18
02 Ahmed Bashandy New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02.txt
2020-01-18
02 (System) New version approved
2020-01-18
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Francois Clad , Pablo Camarillo , Clarence Filsfils , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Bruno Decraene , Ahmed Bashandy , Francois Clad , Pablo Camarillo , Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2020-01-18
02 Ahmed Bashandy Uploaded new revision
2019-09-06
01 (System) Document has expired
2019-03-25
01 Jeff Tantsura Added to session: IETF-104: rtgwg  Tue-0900
2019-03-05
01 Stephane Litkowski New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
2019-03-05
01 (System) New version approved
2019-03-05
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " daniel.voyer@bell.ca" , Bruno Decraene , Francois Clad , Ahmed Bashandy , Pablo Camarillo , Clarence …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " daniel.voyer@bell.ca" , Bruno Decraene , Francois Clad , Ahmed Bashandy , Pablo Camarillo , Clarence Filsfils , Pierre Francois , Stephane Litkowski
2019-03-05
01 Stephane Litkowski Uploaded new revision
2018-12-03
00 Chris Bowers This document now replaces draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa instead of None
2018-12-03
00 Ahmed Bashandy New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00.txt
2018-12-03
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-12-03
00 Ahmed Bashandy Set submitter to "Ahmed Bashandy ", replaces to draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa and sent approval email to group chairs: rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org
2018-12-03
00 Ahmed Bashandy Uploaded new revision