Fast Recovery for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-20
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## 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? There is consensus among the core active participants in the WG to publish this draft. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? None indicated. 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.) None indicated. 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)? BESS has a policy of requiring at least one implementation for standards track protocol drafts before proceeding. There is at least one known implementation which has been declared on the BESS list during an implementation poll. ## 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. BESS typically cross-reviews documents that make significant extensions to BGP with the IDR working group. This draft only requests a new extended community from the EVPN extended community sub-types and a new EVPN DF Election Capability (EVPN being being owned by BESS), and therefore no further review was considered necessary. 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. N/A 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]? N/A 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. N/A ## 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? I have reviewed the document and provided the authors with comments, which have been addressed. As a part of this review, I noted that I believed the document updated RFC8584. Text describing this, and which parts are updated, was subsequently added to the draft. Since this change occurred after working group last call, the working group was polled to see if anyone believed that there would be interoperability issues between a 'legacy' implementation of RFC8584 and a newer implementation that also conformed to this draft. The consensus was that the update would not cause interoperability issues. The document is clear and is needed. It describes implemented protocol extensions. I believe it is ready to be reviewed by the AD. 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? No lists of common issues identified. 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. This is appropriate as the draft describes protocol extensions and requests a new extended community and DF election capability be allocated from an IANA registry. 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. There are no IPR disclosures. All authors and contributors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared. 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. The draft has 4 authors listed, and they are all known to be active contributors to this technology. 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.) No significant nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are all classified as Normative, but this seems reasonable in this case. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to published RFCs. 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. No. 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? No. 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]). No issues identified. 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. None required. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-11-29
|
08 | Matthew Bocci | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## 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? There is consensus among the core active participants in the WG to publish this draft. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? None indicated. 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.) None indicated. 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)? BESS has a policy of requiring at least one implementation for standards track protocol drafts before proceeding. There is at least one known implementation which has been declared on the BESS list during an implementation poll. ## 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. BESS typically cross-reviews documents that make significant extensions to BGP with the IDR working group. This draft only requests a new extended community from the EVPN extended community sub-types and a new EVPN DF Election Capability (EVPN being being owned by BESS), and therefore no further review was considered necessary. 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. N/A 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]? N/A 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. N/A ## 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? I have reviewed the document and provided the authors with comments, which have been addressed. As a part of this review, I noted that I believed the document updated RFC8584. Text describing this, and which parts are updated, was subsequently added to the draft. Since this change occurred after working group last call, the working group was polled to see if anyone believed that there would be interoperability issues between a 'legacy' implementation of RFC8584 and a newer implementation that also conformed to this draft. The consensus was that the update would not cause interoperability issues. The document is clear and is needed. It describes implemented protocol extensions. I believe it is ready to be reviewed by the AD. 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? No lists of common issues identified. 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. This is appropriate as the draft describes protocol extensions and requests a new extended community and DF election capability be allocated from an IANA registry. 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. There are no IPR disclosures. All authors and contributors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared. 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. The draft has 4 authors listed, and they are all known to be active contributors to this technology. 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.) No significant nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are all classified as Normative, but this seems reasonable in this case. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to published RFCs. 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. No. 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? No. 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]). No issues identified. 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. None required. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-07-10
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-08.txt |
2023-07-10
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-10
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Luc Burdet , Patrice Brissette |
2023-07-10
|
08 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-27
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Adrian Farrel. Sent review to list. |
2023-05-26
|
07 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
2023-05-25
|
07 | Matthew Bocci | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-03-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-07.txt |
2023-03-26
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-26
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Luc Burdet , Patrice Brissette |
2023-03-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-25
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-12-14
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | Waiting for authors response to question raised about whether this draft updates RFC8584. |
2022-11-03
|
06 | Matthew Bocci | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## 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? There is consensus among the core active participants in the WG to publish this draft. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? None indicated. 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.) None indicated. 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)? BESS has a policy of requiring at least one implementation for standards track protocol drafts before proceeding. There is at least one known implementation which has been declared on the BESS list during an implementation poll. ## 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. BESS typically cross-reviews documents that make significant extensions to BGP with the IDR working group. This draft only requests a new extended community from the EVPN extended community sub-types and a new EVPN DF Election Capability (EVPN being being owned by BESS), and therefore no further review was considered necessary. 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. N/A 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]? N/A 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. N/A ## 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? I have reviewed the document and provided the authors with comments, which have been addressed. The document is clear and is needed. It describes implemented protocol extensions. I believe it is ready to be reviewed by the AD. 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? No lists of common issues identified. 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. This is appropriate as the draft describes protocol extensions and requests a new extended community and DF election capability be allocated from an IANA registry. 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. There are no IPR disclosures. All authors and contributors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared. 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. The draft has 4 authors listed, and they are all known to be active contributors to this technology. 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.) No significant nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are all classified as Normative, but this seems reasonable in this case. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to published RFCs. 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. No. 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? No. 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]). No issues identified. 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. None required. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-08-24
|
06 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-06.txt |
2022-08-24
|
06 | Luc André Burdet | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Luc André Burdet) |
2022-08-24
|
06 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-14
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to matthew.bocci@nokia.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-07-14
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2022-07-14
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2022-07-14
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2022-07-14
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-07-14
|
05 | Matthew Bocci | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-03-07
|
05 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-05.txt |
2022-03-07
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Luc André Burdet) |
2022-03-07
|
05 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2022-02-12
|
04 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-04.txt |
2022-02-12
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Luc André Burdet) |
2022-02-12
|
04 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-20
|
03 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03.txt |
2022-01-20
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Luc André Burdet) |
2022-01-20
|
03 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-07
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-06
|
02 | Patrice Brissette | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-02.txt |
2021-07-06
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-06
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Dhananjaya Rao , Gaurav Badoni , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Dhananjaya Rao , Gaurav Badoni , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , bess-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-07-06
|
02 | Patrice Brissette | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-10
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-03-09
|
01 | Luc André Burdet | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-01.txt |
2020-03-09
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Gaurav Badoni , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi , Dhananjaya Rao |
2020-03-09
|
01 | Luc André Burdet | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-14
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-07-04
|
00 | Stephane Litkowski | This document now replaces draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery instead of None |
2018-06-12
|
00 | Ali Sajassi | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-00.txt |
2018-06-12
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-06-12
|
00 | Ali Sajassi | Set submitter to "Ali Sajassi ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: bess-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-06-12
|
00 | Ali Sajassi | Uploaded new revision |