Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model
draft-ietf-forces-model-16
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
16 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Chris Newman |
2008-10-17
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2008-10-17
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2008-10-17
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-10-17
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-10-13
|
16 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2008-10-13
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-10-13
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-10-13
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-10-13
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-10-10
|
16 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Ross Callon |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot comment] I found this document to be at some times very specific (section 9.2 laying IANA considerations for Class Names and IDs) and at … [Ballot comment] I found this document to be at some times very specific (section 9.2 laying IANA considerations for Class Names and IDs) and at other times very abstract. For example when introducing the ID space referred to here in section 3 it is identified as "global within the Network Element and may be issued by IANA." If the ID is global only within the NE, why do they need to be issued by IANA? And, if they do need to be unique outside the NE, why only a "may" here? The document itself is a nice object-oriented model of how someone might conceptualize a router design. As such, it is well-written and does as good a job as anyone might be asked to do. However, it is the same level of abstraction that helps to make this document possible, which also makes me wonder if we will ever see truly independent and interoperable models, protocols, hardware, FEs, LFBs, etc. for any of this (or enough to matter beyond an academic exercise). I see no reason to hold up this document in particular at this stage, but in general I believe the IESG needs to take a hard look at the work in the WG and question whether it will be able to achieve its goals. |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-10-09
|
16 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-10-08
|
16 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-10-08
|
16 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-10-08
|
16 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] Section 12. s/[2]/[5]/ (The security considerations includes a reference that is inconsistent with the surrounding text. The text refers to RFC 3746, … [Ballot comment] Section 12. s/[2]/[5]/ (The security considerations includes a reference that is inconsistent with the surrounding text. The text refers to RFC 3746, which is reference [5] but [2] is the reference that is included in the text. ) |
2008-10-07
|
16 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-10-07
|
16 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Chris Newman |
2008-10-07
|
16 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-16.txt |
2008-10-07
|
16 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
2008-09-26
|
16 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Richard Barnes. |
2008-09-26
|
16 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 |
2008-09-24
|
16 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Mark Townsley |
2008-09-24
|
16 | Chris Newman | [Ballot discuss] I don't believe this document adequately addresses the requirements in BCP 70. Since it seems just about _every_ XML schema coming through … [Ballot discuss] I don't believe this document adequately addresses the requirements in BCP 70. Since it seems just about _every_ XML schema coming through the IESG gets the wrong, let me try a simple explanation: XML is extensible by default. XML schema is non-extensible by default. If you use XML schema, your protocol/model/format is almost certainly not extensible by default and even if you've done the extra work to allow extensibility within the schema, extensions tend to be order sensitive and an ordering model for them may be necessary. RelaxNG shares the same problems, except that the RelaxNG interleave pattern does not suffer from the order sensitivity problem and thus can support multiple independent extensions. Getting to this specific document, the following statement in section 4: --- Each of the library documents MUST conform to the schema presented in this section. --- creates a normative dependency on XML schema (which is not properly documented in the references), and is equivalent to the statement "library documents are not extensible". I want to confirm the authors and WG have considered this issue and this is the intention. The same issue may apply to other uses of schema in the document. This is also missing a normative reference to STD 63 (UTF-8). |
2008-09-24
|
16 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-09-24
|
16 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-09-24
|
16 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] The document does not include the standard phrase about keywords required by RFC 2119. The replacement phrase in the introduction does not … [Ballot comment] The document does not include the standard phrase about keywords required by RFC 2119. The replacement phrase in the introduction does not mention for example 'MUST NOT' although there are a number of instances of 'MUST NOT' in the text. |
2008-09-24
|
16 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-09-23
|
16 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-23
|
16 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-09-19
|
16 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-09-11
|
16 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
2008-09-11
|
16 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
2008-09-11
|
16 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-09-11
|
16 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon |
2008-09-11
|
16 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2008-09-11
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-09-11
|
15 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-15.txt |
2008-09-10
|
16 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
2008-09-08
|
16 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-09-05
|
16 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments/questions: IANA has questions: - IANA has no registration for a "forces" or "forces:lfbmodel" namespace, so has no place to put the … IANA Last Call comments/questions: IANA has questions: - IANA has no registration for a "forces" or "forces:lfbmodel" namespace, so has no place to put the "forces:lfbmodel:1.0" namespace. Do you want to register these other namespaces too? Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "ns" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html ID URI Registration template Reference ------------------ ----------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------- forces:lfbmodel:1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0 forces:lfbmodel:1.0 [RFC-forces-model-14] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Registry Name: LDF Class Names Range Registration Procedures Notes -------- ------------------------ ------ 3-65535 Standards Track >65535 First Come, First Served Requires stable, publically available document as reference; name must begin with "EXT-" Identifier LFB Class Name Reference Description ---------- ---------------- -------------- ------------- 0 Reserved [RFC-forces-model-14] Reserved 1 FE Object [RFC-forces-model-14] Defines ForCES Forwarding Element information 2 FE Protocol 2 [draft-forces-protocol-11] Defines parameters Object for the ForCES protocol operation We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2008-09-05
|
16 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2008-09-05
|
16 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Ross Callon | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation by Ross Callon |
2008-08-25
|
16 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-08-25
|
16 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-08-25
|
16 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party by Ross Callon |
2008-08-25
|
16 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon |
2008-08-23
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-14.txt |
2008-08-18
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-13.txt |
2008-07-14
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-12.txt |
2008-04-10
|
16 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
2008-04-07
|
16 | Ross Callon | Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested |
2008-02-25
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-11.txt |
2008-01-29
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-10.txt |
2007-12-21
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-09.txt |
2007-10-07
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-08.txt |
2007-04-08
|
16 | (System) | Document has expired |
2006-10-05
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt |
2006-03-07
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-06.txt |
2005-07-21
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-05.txt |
2005-02-23
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-04.txt |
2004-07-19
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-03.txt |
2004-02-16
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-02.txt |
2003-10-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-01.txt |
2003-08-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-00.txt |