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 |