Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)
draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-05-19
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-05-03
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2017-05-02
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-03-02
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-02-23
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2017-02-17
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2017-02-02
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-02-02
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-02-02
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-02-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2017-02-01
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2017-02-01
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2017-01-20
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for handling the sig alg issue. |
2017-01-20
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2017-01-18
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2017-01-18
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2017-01-18
|
09 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-09.txt |
2017-01-18
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-18
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Vina Ermagan" , "Vince Fuller" , "Darrel Lewis" , "Amit Jain" , "Anton Smirnov" |
2017-01-18
|
09 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-03
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Thank you for this draft. I plan to recommend its approval, but first I would like to ensure that the issues raised by … [Ballot discuss] Thank you for this draft. I plan to recommend its approval, but first I would like to ensure that the issues raised by Dale Worley in his Gen-ART review are addressed satisfactorily and in consultation with the working group, to ensure that the document is as clear as possible. Specifically, the questions about XEIDs and the definition of a peer and a DDT node at least need to be worked through. (I’m not necessarily asking for text changes, but looking for convergence in the discussion so that we are on the same page about what is meant. And I see the discussion is already ongoing -- thanks for that.) |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Jari Arkko | Ballot discuss text updated for Jari Arkko |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] Thank you for this draft. I plan to recommend its approval, but first I would like to ensure that the issues raised by … [Ballot discuss] Thank you for this draft. I plan to recommend its approval, but first I would like to ensure that the issues raised by Dale Worley in his Gen-ART review are addressed satisfactorily and in consultation with the working group, to ensure that the document is as clear as possible. Specifically, the questions about XEIDs and the definition of a peer and a DDT node at least need to be worked through. (I’m not necessarily asking for text changes, but looking for convergence in the discussion so that we are on the same page about what is meant.) |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] 6.4.1: RSA-SHA1 is not the right choice today, shouldn't this be RSA-SHA256? |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - 6.4.1: Can you clarify what bits are signed? I'm not quite sure from the description given - you can have more than … [Ballot comment] - 6.4.1: Can you clarify what bits are signed? I'm not quite sure from the description given - you can have more than one signature but you say the the "entire record" is covered. - Section 8: Where's signature validation in the pseudo-code? |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Would it be worth it to potentially think about/document potential attacks against this system? I didn't think myself about how such an attack … [Ballot comment] Would it be worth it to potentially think about/document potential attacks against this system? I didn't think myself about how such an attack could look like but given that location and identity are potential sensitive data it might be worth it... |
2016-10-27
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-10-26
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Linda Dunbar performed the opsdir review |
2016-10-26
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-10-26
|
08 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-10-26
|
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-10-26
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-10-26
|
08 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-10-25
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-10-25
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-10-25
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-10-24
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I have no objections to the publication of this document. However, I do wonder why an extension to the DNS infrastructure wasn't used … [Ballot comment] I have no objections to the publication of this document. However, I do wonder why an extension to the DNS infrastructure wasn't used instead. The Gen-ART review provided a significant set of good comments that should be taken into consideration. |
2016-10-24
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-10-20
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. |
2016-10-17
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-10-17
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-10-15
|
08 | Dale Worley | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dale Worley. |
2016-10-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2016-10-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-10-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-10-07
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-07
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist |
2016-10-06
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2016-10-06
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dale Worley |
2016-10-06
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2016-10-06
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2016-10-05
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2016-10-05
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: ggx@gigix.net, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-ddt@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: ggx@gigix.net, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lisp-ddt@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (LISP Delegated Database Tree) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP Delegated Database Tree' as Experimental RFC 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 2016-10-17. 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 describes the LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT), a hierarchical, distributed database which embodies the delegation of authority to provide mappings from LISP Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) to Routing Locators (RLOCs). It is a statically-defined distribution of the EID namespace among a set of LISP-speaking servers, called DDT nodes. Each DDT node is configured as "authoritative" for one or more EID-prefixes, along with the set of RLOCs for Map Servers or "child" DDT nodes to which more-specific EID-prefixes are delegated. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-ddt/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-ddt/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-10-27 |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2016-10-03
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-09-08
|
08 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08.txt |
2016-08-03
|
07 | Xian Zhang | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2016-07-19
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Thomas Morin was rejected |
2016-07-19
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2016-07-19
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2016-07-19
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Thomas Morin |
2016-07-19
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Thomas Morin |
2016-07-19
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Andrew Malis was rejected |
2016-07-11
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andrew Malis |
2016-07-11
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Andrew Malis |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (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 draft is targeting publication as an Experimental RFC. It is the proper type of RFC since it provides an alternative mapping system for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), whose RFCs have Experimental status. The RFC type is clearly marked 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: The document describes the LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT), a distributed hierarchical mapping database. LISP-DDT is composed of servers (DDT nodes) organised as a hierarchical tree, based on EID namespace delegation. Every DDT node, from the root to the leafs, is authoritative for a set of EID-prefixes. To each EID-prefix is associated either a set of RLOCs or child DDT nodes to which more specific EID-prefixes are delegated. Each LISP-DDT node can be queried using Map-Request messages [RFC6830]. The node will reply either with a Map-Reply message [RFC6830], carrying the the set of RLOCs associated to the prefix, or with a Map-Referral (Defined in this document), indicating the DDT nodes that are authoritative for a more specific EID-prefix covering the requested EID. Working Group Summary: The document received a strong support from the WG from the very beginning, and actually the design of the system is the result of a strong collaboration among WG participant. The version of the document that was approved during WG Last Call is -03. As a shepherd I required a few editorial changes to the document. This delayed de document since the main author did not have time anymore to updated the document. (The document actually expired.) A new author joined the team recently and after a couple of updates the document is ready to go further. 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? There are two independent and inter-operable implementations of the proposed hierarchical distributed database and lookup mechanisms. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone Who is the Responsible Area Director? When the document past WG Last Call the responsible AD was Brian Haberman . At the time of this writing the responsible AD is Deborah Brungard . (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. I reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable. On the document that past the WG Last Call I had some editorial changes. Mainly moving the section defining the packet format from appendix to a full section, and few other wording nits. This took a while as described in the WG Summary section of this write up. I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits (output provided on point 11) resulting in a couple of warnings concerning outdated references. These can be fixed later on along with the modifications (if any) required by the IESG review. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have 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 broader review is required for this document. (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. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (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? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. (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 filed. (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 clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (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.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (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. idnits 2.14.01 /tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (May 31, 2016) is 9 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-09 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (a couple of fixes are needed to solve the ID nits but they do not change the core of normative and informative references). (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 normative references in unclear state. (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 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. No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (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 documents does not make any request to 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. No expert review is required. (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 anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2016-06-13
|
07 | Luigi Iannone | Changed document writeup |
2016-05-31
|
07 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-07.txt |
2016-04-26
|
06 | Vina Ermagan | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-06.txt |
2016-04-25
|
05 | Vina Ermagan | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-05.txt |
2016-03-21
|
04 | Vina Ermagan | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-04.txt |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Luigi Iannone" to (None) |
2015-04-15
|
03 | Darrel Lewis | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-03.txt |
2015-02-17
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | Notification list changed to "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net> |
2015-02-17
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | Document shepherd changed to Luigi Iannone |
2015-02-17
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | WG LC resulted in consensus to move the document forward. |
2015-02-17
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2014-10-13
|
02 | Darrel Lewis | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-02.txt |
2013-03-28
|
01 | Vince Fuller | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-01.txt |
2012-10-15
|
00 | Vince Fuller | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-00.txt |