GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-05-17
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-04-06
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2018-04-06
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-03-15
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-03-08
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-03-07
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IANA |
2018-01-11
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
2017-12-18
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from IESG |
2017-03-03
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from EDIT |
2017-03-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-03-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2017-03-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2017-02-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2017-02-22
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-02-22
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-02-22
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-02-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-02-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-02-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-02-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-02-17
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-02-17
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2017-02-16
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-02-16
|
09 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-09.txt |
2017-02-16
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-16
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" |
2017-02-16
|
09 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2017-02-16
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2017-02-15
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I don't see a response to the SecDir review that asks for more clarity in the … [Ballot comment] Thanks for your work on this draft. I don't see a response to the SecDir review that asks for more clarity in the draft on OSPF Opaque LSAs, mentioned in the security considerations section, but not elsewhere. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg07120.html Could some text be added to help with this request? |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | Ballot comment text updated for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I don't see a response to the SecDir review that asks for more clarity in the draft on OSPF Opaque LSAs, mentioned in … [Ballot comment] I don't see a response to the SecDir review that asks for more clarity in the draft on OSPF Opaque LSAs, mentioned in the security considerations section, but not elsewhere. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg07120.html |
2017-02-14
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-02-13
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-02-13
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-02-10
|
08 | Pete Resnick | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. Sent review to list. |
2017-02-10
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2017-02-10
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2017-02-10
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] 1) Is it really necessary to define a sub-TLV to a sub-TLV? The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is already a sub-TLV of the … [Ballot comment] 1) Is it really necessary to define a sub-TLV to a sub-TLV? The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is already a sub-TLV of the Link TLV and now you define another sub-sub-TVL for the Frequency availability bitmap. Is it really necessary to have another sub-TLV system here and a new/own registry, given you only define one (!) sub-sub-TLV? I would say you should remove this sub-sub-TLV system and the registry and simply define the bitmap as fixed part of the new Flexi-Grid-LSC sub-TLV. And if you every need another sub-sub-TLV you simply define another ISCD sub-TLV instead. I really don't think the additional complexity of this sub-sub-TLV system and the registry is justified! 2) The Port Label Restriction field as specified in RFC7579 is not a sub-TLV but a field; see section 4.2: "The Port Label Restriction sub-TLV is defined in [RFC7579]. " 3) Section 3 does not specify any requirements (as the title indicates) but only given some quite extensive background information. I don't think this is needed (anymore) for the final published document and could be completely removed or compressed to a few paragraphs in the intro. |
2017-02-10
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-02-10
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-02-09
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-02-09
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08.txt |
2017-02-09
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-09
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" |
2017-02-09
|
08 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Telechat date has been changed to 2017-02-16 from 2017-03-02 |
2017-02-06
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Telechat date has been changed to 2017-03-02 from 2017-02-16 |
2017-02-03
|
07 | Pete Resnick | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. Sent review to list. |
2017-02-01
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bert Wijnen. |
2017-01-31
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2017-01-31
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-01-27
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-01-27
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the Switching Types subregistry of the GMPLS Signaling Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/ a new switching type will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Name: Flexi-Grid-LSC Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, a new registry is to be created called the Types for sub-TLVs of Flexi-Grid-LSC SCSI (Switch Capability-Specific Information) registry. The new registry is to be located in the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ IANA Services Operator Question --> Consulting RFC 5226, what should be the maintenance policy be for this new registry? There are to be initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Value Sub-TLV Reference --------- -------------------------- ------------- 0 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] 1 Frequency availability bitmap [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2017-01-26
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows. |
2017-01-19
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2017-01-19
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2017-01-19
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
2017-01-19
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
2017-01-17
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-01-17
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "Dieter Beller" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "Dieter Beller" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, ccamp@ietf.org, dieter.beller@nokia.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in support of Flexi-grid DWDM networks) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in support of Flexi-grid DWDM networks' 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 2017-01-31. 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 The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal central frequencies, channel spacings, and the concept of the "frequency slot". Corresponding techniques for data-plane connections are know as flexi-grid. Based on the characteristics of flexi-grid defined in G.694.1, RFC 7698 and 7699, this document describes the OSPF-TE extensions in support of GMPLS control of networks that include devices that use the new flexible optical grid. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-01-17
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-01-17
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2017-01-17
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2017-01-17
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2017-01-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-02-16 |
2017-01-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2017-01-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-01-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-01-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-01-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2017-01-03
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-12-20
|
07 | Xian Zhang | Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Telechat review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2016-12-09
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Requested Telechat review by RTGDIR |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | 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 … 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? This document is requested for publication as Standards Track RFC. This is appropriate because the document defines GMPLS OSPF-TE extensions that are required to support DWDM networks that support the flexible DWDM grid as defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1. Moreover, this document is related to Standards Track RFC7579 and Standards Track RFC7699 as it defines the OSPF-TE extensions for the new flexible DWDM grid in addition to the existing fixed DWDM grid. "Standards Track" RFC type is correctly indicated in the title page header. (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 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. The document defines necessary OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS in order to support new flexible grid data plane functionality that is defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1 for DWDM networks. Currently, OSPF-TE for GMPLS can only be used for fixed grid DWDM networks. The document extends RFC4203 and RFC7580. Document abstract: "This memo describes the OSPF-TE extensions in support of GMPLS control of networks that include devices that use the new flexible optical grid." 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 has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. Version 02 of the document contained 3 options how to encode “available resources”. When the document was presented at the Prague meeting in July 2015, it was agreed to reduce these options preferably to a single encoding. The CCAMP did a poll on the CCAMP mailing list and there was a clear majority vote in favor of the encoding currently defined in the document. The other 2 options were removed. Finally, there were no problems with reaching WG consensus. 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? The work has had contributions from a larger group of people. Additionally, the work has had external review form the IDEALIST EU project. One of the IDEALIST goals is to foster elastic optical networks equipped with a multi-domain and multi-technology control plane enabling adaptive network and service interworking. Several optical equipment vendors are participating in this project. Based on the document shepherd's knowledge, a significant number of vendors are considering the implementation or have already an implementation of the protocol extensions for their DWDM products supporting the flexible grid. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Dieter Beller is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director. (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 document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the document: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-06.txt and believes it is ready for publication when it will have been updated based on the improvements suggested hereafter: The Abstract should be enhanced. It is fairly short. Some text from the Abstract of RFC7698 could be used. The Abstract should explicitly mention ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1 (see abstract of RFC7698). The last paragraph of the Introduction should contain a reference to RFC4203. It shall also state that this document defines extensions to RFC7580. Editorial comments/corrections have been sent to the authors. Corrections are required in lines 120, 247, and 509. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherd has no concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such specific review is required. (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. There are no such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been made. (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 has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus on the document. (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 threats or discontent. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits is clean apart from false positives. See: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-06.txt (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such reviews are needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? All references are correctly identified. (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? There are no such normative references. (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. There are no such downward normative references. (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. The document defines OSPF-TE extensions for GMPLS in order to support new data plane functionality that has been defined by the ITU-T for DWDM networks. Therefore, it is solely an extension to RFC4203 and RFC7580, respectively, and does not change the status of RFC4203, RFC7580, or any other existing RFC. (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). The IANA section of the document is properly written and contains all relevant information. The document defines one required extension of an existing IANA registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml and defines a new sub-registry under: http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml The suggested name for the new sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs of Flexi-Grid-LSC SCSI (Switch Capability-Specific Information)" is reasonable. The document also provides suggested registry values, which are appropriate. (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. The new sub-registry is defined properly. (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. The document does not contain such sections. |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2016-12-06
|
07 | Fatai Zhang | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-10-25
|
07 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07.txt |
2016-10-25
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-25
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " zhenghaomian@huawei.com" |
2016-10-25
|
07 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-06
|
06 | Dieter Beller | Changed document writeup |
2016-09-23
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-06.txt |
2016-09-23
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | New version approved |
2016-09-23
|
06 | Haomian Zheng | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar Gonzalez de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , " … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Daniele Ceccarelli" , ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, "Oscar Gonzalez de Dios" , "Xian Zhang" , "Ramon Casellas" , "zhenghaomian@huawei.com" |
2016-09-23
|
06 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-10
|
05 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-05.txt |
2016-07-18
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Notification list changed to "Dieter Beller" <dieter.beller@nokia.com> |
2016-07-18
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Document shepherd changed to Dieter Beller |
2016-07-17
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2016-07-17
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-07-17
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-07-17
|
04 | Daniele Ceccarelli | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-06-24
|
04 | Fatai Zhang | IPR Responses: From Haomian Zheng: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/s800Wmg47J_0yUfESm3W8cBK3N4 From Ramon: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4UX3FpHya_Haov7WSLCPWijaCgg From Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Q1YY-jbyXKNg2eJLoSmdRyUMBRw From Daniele: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/IXaVkASYZlzwDIqJI13F-A4TB4k From Guoying Zhang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/wQTEQw1hDJViV7h02rPytle1h4E From Fatai Zhang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AQJ_9FLzqAVGN78K8ermGAZmGmk From Xian … IPR Responses: From Haomian Zheng: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/s800Wmg47J_0yUfESm3W8cBK3N4 From Ramon: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4UX3FpHya_Haov7WSLCPWijaCgg From Adrian: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Q1YY-jbyXKNg2eJLoSmdRyUMBRw From Daniele: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/IXaVkASYZlzwDIqJI13F-A4TB4k From Guoying Zhang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/wQTEQw1hDJViV7h02rPytle1h4E From Fatai Zhang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AQJ_9FLzqAVGN78K8ermGAZmGmk From Xian Zhang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/dOxwPTT5cVABgMAohVlPSkH24i4 From Lei Wang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Wj7q-UIttfA-Li1w0Fan_fmv4-I From Oscar: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/qiNZwGzmYpl631kLlAubGGKd-cA |
2016-04-24
|
04 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04.txt |
2015-10-16
|
03 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-03.txt |
2015-06-16
|
02 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-02.txt |
2014-12-16
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt |
2014-06-23
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-00.txt |