Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-01-28
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-01-11
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-01-04
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-10-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from Waiting on Authors |
2015-10-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2015-10-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-10-19
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-10-19
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-19
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2015-10-14
|
04 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-10-14
|
04 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-04.txt |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to aretana@cisco.com |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Jeffrey Haas" , draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com to (None) |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Just a question on this draft... Given its status as clarifying (and updating) RFC 5884, does it also inherit any of the … |
2015-10-14
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-10-13
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I'd just ask that you expand out BFD on first use since it is an acronym … [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I'd just ask that you expand out BFD on first use since it is an acronym used frequently in the draft. |
2015-10-13
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-10-13
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-10-12
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Scott Bradner did the Opsdir review I have done a OPS-DIR review of "Clarifications to RFC 5884” summary - ready for publication … [Ballot comment] Scott Bradner did the Opsdir review I have done a OPS-DIR review of "Clarifications to RFC 5884” summary - ready for publication This document clarifies how best to operate multiple BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) sessions in MPLS environments. Any document that purports to clarify operational procedures is, by definition, a good thing when it comes to operational impact, assuming the document is clear and makes sense. This document is clear and makes sense. One suggestion though. The first observation in Section 2.3 says: The BFD session MAY be removed in the egress LSR if the BFD session transitions from UP to DOWN. This can be done after the expiry of a configurable timer started after the BFD session state transitions from UP to DOWN at the egress LSR. It might be helpful to specifically say what the aim of using such a timer is. My guess is that the timer is used to introduce hysteresis to reduce flapping - but it would nice to say one way or the other |
2015-10-12
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-10-12
|
03 | Christer Holmberg | Assignment of request for Telechat review by GENART to Christer Holmberg was rejected |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-10-08
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stephen Kent. |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-08
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-10-08
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-10-07
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org, aretana@cisco.com from "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org |
2015-10-03
|
02 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-10-03
|
03 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-03.txt |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
2015-09-30
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2015-09-30
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2015-09-25
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-09-25
|
02 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA 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, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarifications to RFC 5884) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Clarifications to RFC 5884) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG (bfd) to consider the following document: - 'Clarifications to RFC 5884' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-08. 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 clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given described in RFC5884. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-15 |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>, draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications@ietf.org, bfd-chairs@ietf.org from "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org> |
2015-09-24
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | : Document Writeup for Working Group Documents : : As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document : Shepherd … : Document Writeup for Working Group Documents : : As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document : Shepherd Write-Up. : : Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. : : (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, : Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is : this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title : page header? Proposed standard. Since this updates RFC 5884, which is also on the standards track, this status is appropriate. : (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement : Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent : examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved : documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: : : Technical Summary: This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given described in RFC5884. : Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or : introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that : there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. : : Working Group Summary: : : Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was : there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where : the consensus was particularly rough? This document received good discussion among the usual key contributors to the BFD Working Group. Nothing controversial was discussed, the clarifications are considered sound practice. : Document Quality: : Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant : number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? : Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a : thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a : conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a : MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course : (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the : request posted? RFC 5884 is implemented by a number of vendors that support MPLS and BFD to verify those MPLS LSPs. This clarifications document was motivated by some ambiguities in that RFC which were noted as implementors were attempting to implement some of the edge cases. Implementations are expected to pick up the changes in this document soon if they are not otherwise implemented already. This document does not impact backward compatibility. : Personnel: : : Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas, co-chair BFD. Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana. : (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by : the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for : publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the : IESG. The shepherd was involved in the discussion of the feature, but not a primary participant. Editorial passes have been done for language and technical content. : (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or : breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The level of review is considered good. Additionally, the document shared its last call with the MPLS Working Group, which has an interest in the fate of this document. : (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. : (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. None. : (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? Yes. : (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If : so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR : disclosures. No additional IPR has been noted for this document. Note that the base RFC 5884 document does have IPR: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=5884&submit=rfc : (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? There is solid consensus behind the document's contents. The last call unfortunately suffered from Working Group attention exhaustion and took a bit of work to get this consensus validated. : (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme : discontent? If so, please summarise 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.) No. : (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this : document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts : Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be : thorough. No nits. : (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review : criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required. : (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either : normative or informative? All references are normative. : (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for : advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative : references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All referenced documents are RFCs. : (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? : If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in : the Last Call procedure. No. : (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing : RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the : abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed : in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of : the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs : is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why : the WG considers it unnecessary. Yes. This document updates RFC 5884 and is flagged appropriately. : (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes : are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. : Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly : identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a : detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that : allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a : reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document properly asks nothing of IANA. : (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future : allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful : in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. : (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. Not applicable. |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | : Document Writeup for Working Group Documents : : As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document : Shepherd … : Document Writeup for Working Group Documents : : As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document : Shepherd Write-Up. : : Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. : : (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, : Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is : this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title : page header? Internet standard. Since this updates RFC 5884, which is also on the standards track, this status is appropriate. : (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement : Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent : examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved : documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: : : Technical Summary: This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining and removing multiple, concurrent BFD sessions for a given described in RFC5884. : Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or : introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that : there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. : : Working Group Summary: : : Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was : there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where : the consensus was particularly rough? This document received good discussion among the usual key contributors to the BFD Working Group. Nothing controversial was discussed, the clarifications are considered sound practice. : Document Quality: : Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant : number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? : Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a : thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a : conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a : MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course : (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the : request posted? RFC 5884 is implemented by a number of vendors that support MPLS and BFD to verify those MPLS LSPs. This clarifications document was motivated by some ambiguities in that RFC which were noted as implementors were attempting to implement some of the edge cases. Implementations are expected to pick up the changes in this document soon if they are not otherwise implemented already. This document does not impact backward compatibility. : Personnel: : : Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Document Shepherd: Jeffrey Haas, co-chair BFD. Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana. : (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by : the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for : publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the : IESG. The shepherd was involved in the discussion of the feature, but not a primary participant. Editorial passes have been done for language and technical content. : (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or : breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The level of review is considered good. Additionally, the document shared its last call with the MPLS Working Group, which has an interest in the fate of this document. : (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. : (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. None. : (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? Yes. : (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If : so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR : disclosures. No additional IPR has been noted for this document. Note that the base RFC 5884 document does have IPR: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=5884&submit=rfc : (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? There is solid consensus behind the document's contents. The last call unfortunately suffered from Working Group attention exhaustion and took a bit of work to get this consensus validated. : (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme : discontent? If so, please summarise 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.) No. : (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this : document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts : Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be : thorough. No nits. : (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review : criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None required. : (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either : normative or informative? All references are normative. : (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for : advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative : references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All referenced documents are RFCs. : (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? : If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in : the Last Call procedure. No. : (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing : RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the : abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed : in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of : the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs : is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why : the WG considers it unnecessary. Yes. This document updates RFC 5884 and is flagged appropriately. : (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes : are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. : Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly : identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a : detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that : allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a : reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document properly asks nothing of IANA. : (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future : allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful : in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. : (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. Not applicable. |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | Changed document writeup |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | Notification list changed to "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org> |
2015-09-01
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | Document shepherd changed to Jeffrey Haas |
2015-08-18
|
02 | Jeffrey Haas | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-06-16
|
02 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-02.txt |
2015-05-04
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-05-04
|
01 | Jeffrey Haas | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-03-05
|
01 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-01.txt |
2015-01-15
|
00 | Nobo Akiya | This document now replaces draft-grmas-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications instead of None |
2015-01-15
|
00 | Vengada Prasad Govindan | New version available: draft-ietf-bfd-rfc5884-clarifications-00.txt |