Skip to main content

A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-01-29
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-10-21
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from "Bill Cerveny" , ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis@ietf.org to (None)
2015-10-06
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-08-21
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2015-08-21
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-08-21
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-08-21
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-08-21
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-08-21
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-08-21
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-08-21
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-08-21
05 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-08-21
05 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2015-08-21
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-08-20
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thanks for adding in additional security considerations on reconnaissance.
2015-08-20
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-08-20
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-08-20
05 Al Morton IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-08-20
05 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-05.txt
2015-08-20
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-08-19
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-08-19
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-08-19
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
Nice to see us moving documents to Internet Standard when it's appropriate.
2015-08-19
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-08-19
04 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot discuss]
For the most part, this draft looks good, but the security considerations haven't been updated from the previous release.  An important consideration for …
[Ballot discuss]
For the most part, this draft looks good, but the security considerations haven't been updated from the previous release.  An important consideration for traffic measurement is that it could be used for reconnaissance activity.  By colecting results (passively or actively) of measurement data, you learn more about the network and that can be used in subsequent attacks.  Can you add this consideration into the text?

Thank you!
2015-08-19
04 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-08-19
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-08-19
04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-08-18
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot comment]
Just reviewing the changes:

2.8.1:

s/in future/future
2015-08-18
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-08-18
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-08-18
04 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
Same comment I had on the security considerations section in draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "there can be no …
[Ballot comment]
Same comment I had on the security considerations section in draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "there can be no release of existing user data."
2015-08-18
04 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-08-17
04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-08-16
04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-08-14
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-08-14
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
No issues from my perspective given I only reviewed the changes (diff is a wonderful thing) between this draft and RFC 2680.
2015-08-14
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-20
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins
(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?  …
(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.  See section 7, “RFC 2680 bis”, of the draft for a detailed discussion. The document being replaced, RFC 2680, is a proposed standard.


(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 memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
packets across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and
discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330.  This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.

Working Group Summary

There was nothing unusual or controversial.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

"Surveyor Implementation Report RFC 2679-2680": https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/60/slides/ippm-6.pdf

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-implement-02


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?

See slides and documents referenced in “Document Quality”.

Personnel

The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny.  The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.

(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 was reviewed by the document shepherd for which changes were suggested and implemented in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No

(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

(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? 

It has support across the working group in general and participants familiar with the topic support 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

(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.

Note downward refs documented by idnits  in question #15.

From idnits:
 
  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2680, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC2680
    though, so this could be OK.

The text from the abstract is, “This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.”

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
    a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).

This appears to be a parsing error on the part of idnits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(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?

No

(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.

From idnits:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312

As discussed with Al Morton, editor:

“In the past, Wes Eddy put in a standing exception for 2330, the original framework.
We should ask for a similar exception for RFC 7312, which updates 2330, and has the
same status.

“In any case, Downrefs like these have to be on the exception list,
or specifically noted in the IETF Last Call Notice.”


(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.

This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 2680. RFC 2680 was a proposed standard; the new document will be an Internet standard.

(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).

As stated in the draft, “This memo makes no requests of IANA.”  There are no IANA considerations.

(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.

2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins Ballot has been issued
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins Created "Approve" ballot
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was changed
2015-08-14
04 Spencer Dawkins Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-08-13
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Scott Bradner.
2015-08-13
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
2015-08-12
04 Al Morton IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-08-12
04 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04.txt
2015-08-11
03 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2015-08-11
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-08-09
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2015-08-09
03 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03, and its reviewer has the following comments:

IANA has a question about this document's IANA …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03, and its reviewer has the following comments:

IANA has a question about this document's IANA Considerations section.

IANA understands that the authors have indicated that this document is not requesting any IANA actions.

However, RFC 2680, which is obsoleted by this document, is the reference for the Type-P-One-way-Packet-Loss MIB in IPPM MIB. Please see:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaippmmetricsregistry-mib

What do the authors intend to change so that the MIB's references to RFC2680 are changed to [ RFC-to-be ]? Or do the authors intend some other action?
2015-08-05
03 Bill Cerveny Notification list changed to "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis@ietf.org from "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>
2015-08-03
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2015-08-03
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner
2015-07-30
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2015-07-30
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2015-07-30
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2015-07-30
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-07-28
03 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:  (A One-Way Loss Metric for …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
to consider the following document:
- 'A One-Way Loss Metric for IPPM'
  as Internet 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 2015-08-11. 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 memo (RFC 2680 bis) defines a metric for one-way loss of packets
  across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and discussed
  in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330; the reader is assumed to be
  familiar with that document.  This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.

Note:
  This memo replaces an old Proposed Standard, and should be evaluated
    for suitability as an Internet Standards.

  There are two Normative references to Informational RFCs:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-07-28
03 Amy Vezza Last call announcement was changed
2015-07-27
03 Spencer Dawkins Last call was requested
2015-07-27
03 Spencer Dawkins Ballot approval text was generated
2015-07-27
03 Spencer Dawkins Ballot writeup was generated
2015-07-27
03 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-07-27
03 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was changed
2015-07-27
03 Spencer Dawkins Last call announcement was generated
2015-07-24
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-07-24
03 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-03.txt
2015-07-13
02 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2015-06-25
02 Spencer Dawkins IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-06-22
02 Bill Cerveny
(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?  …
(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.  See section 7, “RFC 2680 bis”, of the draft for a detailed discussion. The document being replaced, RFC 2680, is a proposed standard.


(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 memo (RFC 2679 bis) defines a metric for one-way delay of
packets across Internet paths.  It builds on notions introduced and
discussed in the IPPM Framework document, RFC 2330.  This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.

Working Group Summary

There was nothing unusual or controversial.

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

"Surveyor Implementation Report RFC 2679-2680": https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/60/slides/ippm-6.pdf

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-implement-02


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?

See slides and documents referenced in “Document Quality”.

Personnel

The document shepherd is Bill Cerveny.  The responsible area director is Spencer Dawkins.

(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 was reviewed by the document shepherd for which changes were suggested and implemented in the draft.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No

(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

(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? 

It has support across the working group in general and participants familiar with the topic support 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

(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.

Note downward refs documented by idnits  in question #15.

From idnits:
 
  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2680, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC2680
    though, so this could be OK.

The text from the abstract is, “This memo makes RFC 2680 obsolete.”

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
    a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).

This appears to be a parsing error on the part of idnits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not Applicable

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(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?

No

(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.

From idnits:

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2330

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7312

As discussed with Al Morton, editor:

“In the past, Wes Eddy put in a standing exception for 2330, the original framework.
We should ask for a similar exception for RFC 7312, which updates 2330, and has the
same status.

“In any case, Downrefs like these have to be on the exception list,
or specifically noted in the IETF Last Call Notice.”


(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.

This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 2680. RFC 2680 was a proposed standard; the new document will be an Internet standard.

(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).

As stated in the draft, “This memo makes no requests of IANA.”  There are no IANA considerations.

(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.

2015-06-22
02 Bill Cerveny Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins
2015-06-22
02 Bill Cerveny IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-06-22
02 Bill Cerveny IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-06-22
02 Bill Cerveny IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-06-22
02 Bill Cerveny Changed document writeup
2015-06-22
02 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-02.txt
2015-03-26
01 Bill Cerveny IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-01-26
01 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-01.txt
2015-01-06
00 Bill Cerveny IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-10-24
00 Bill Cerveny Notification list changed to "Bill Cerveny" <ietf@wjcerveny.com>
2014-10-24
00 Bill Cerveny Document shepherd changed to Bill Cerveny
2014-10-24
00 Bill Cerveny Document shepherd changed to (None)
2014-10-24
00 Bill Cerveny Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None
2014-10-24
00 Bill Cerveny This document now replaces draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis instead of None
2014-10-23
00 Al Morton New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-00.txt