IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability
draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-02-25
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-02-11
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-01-28
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-12-14
|
02 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
2015-11-23
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2015-11-23
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-11-23
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-11-23
|
02 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-11-23
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-11-23
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-11-23
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-11-23
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-23
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-19
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2015-11-19
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] A question about what the reference to transition means was raised in Robert Sparks' Gen-ART review. Robert’s question was good, and Les' answer … [Ballot comment] A question about what the reference to transition means was raised in Robert Sparks' Gen-ART review. Robert’s question was good, and Les' answer was spot on. What I’m wondering is whether it would be useful to add something to the document about your answer, Les? Or at the very least, a reference to Appendix A from Section 2. And if you add something about transition mechanisms, it could simply be “… transition mechanisms (such as configuration setting) …”. |
2015-11-19
|
02 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-11-18
|
02 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-11-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] A reference to the appendix (maybe in section 2) would be nice -- I almost missed it! |
2015-11-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-11-18
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | This document now replaces draft-ginsberg-isis-route-preference instead of None |
2015-11-18
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I was surprised that this only updates one RFC. But if that's felt to be sufficient, that's fine. - Appendix A seems … [Ballot comment] - I was surprised that this only updates one RFC. But if that's felt to be sufficient, that's fine. - Appendix A seems to imply that section 5 could claim that this fixes a potential security issue, but it's fine that the authors prefer brevity in section 5 (in this case:-) |
2015-11-18
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] A security considerations section that says "None." is pretty much the same as not having the section. I assume that means people thought … [Ballot comment] A security considerations section that says "None." is pretty much the same as not having the section. I assume that means people thought about it, and reached the conclusion this was security neutral. It might be helpful to at least briefly describe that thought process. |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-11-17
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-11-16
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-11-16
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-11-13
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-11-10
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica. |
2015-11-05
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Hannes Tschofenig. |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-11-19 |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-31
|
02 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-30
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2015-10-22
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2015-10-19
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-01, 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-isis-route-preference-01, 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. |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2015-10-19
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2015-10-16
|
02 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02.txt |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: , , isis-chairs@ietf.org, , isis-wg@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: , , isis-chairs@ietf.org, , isis-wg@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis) to consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability' 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 2015-10-30. 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 Existing specifications as regards route preference are not explicit when applied to IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability Type/Length/Value (TLVs). There are also inconsistencies in the definition of how the up/down bit applies to route preference when the prefix advertisement appears in Level 2 Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs). This document addresses these issues. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-route-preference/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-route-preference/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-10-16
|
01 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-10-15
|
01 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-10-14
|
01 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Christian Hopps" to (None) |
2015-10-08
|
01 | Christian Hopps | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (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. (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: Clarify differences found in route preferences between various isis RFCs. Working Group Summary: Initial objections to changes to IPv6 to bring in-line with other drafts were overcome. Document Quality: Implementations exist as written and others are expected to be modified to work around issues identified and fixed by clarifications. Personnel: Shepherd: Christian Hopps AD: Alia Atlas (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. Reviewed multiple times by the shepherd. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Well reviewed. (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 broader review 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. 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? No new IPR related to clarification document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No see above. (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? Strong consensus. (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. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (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. 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. No. (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). None. (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. None. |
2015-10-08
|
01 | Christian Hopps | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2015-10-08
|
01 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-10-08
|
01 | Christian Hopps | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-10-08
|
01 | Christian Hopps | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-10-06
|
01 | Naveen Khan | |
2015-10-01
|
01 | Christian Hopps | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-10-01
|
01 | Christian Hopps | Changed document writeup |
2015-10-01
|
01 | Christian Hopps | Notification list changed to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> |
2015-10-01
|
01 | Christian Hopps | Document shepherd changed to Christian Hopps |
2015-09-23
|
01 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-08-14
|
01 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-03-30
|
01 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-01.txt |
2014-10-07
|
00 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-00.txt |