Skip to main content

Publish/Subscribe Functionality for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-15

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-08-02
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2023-06-26
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2023-04-19
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2023-03-01
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2023-03-01
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2023-03-01
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2023-02-28
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2023-02-28
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2023-02-28
15 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2023-02-28
15 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2023-02-28
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2023-02-28
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2023-02-28
15 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2023-02-28
15 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-02-28
15 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2023-02-28
15 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-02-28
15 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-02-28
15 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-02-28
15 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-15.txt
2023-02-28
15 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal)
2023-02-28
15 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2023-02-24
14 (System) Changed action holders to Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, Vina Ermagan, Mohamed Boucadair, Sharon Barkai, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (IESG state changed)
2023-02-24
14 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-02-23
14 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-02-23
14 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-02-23
14 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Thank you to Chris M. Lonvick for the SECDIR review.

** Thank you to Magnus Westerlund for the TSVART review which had …
[Ballot comment]
** Thank you to Chris M. Lonvick for the SECDIR review.

** Thank you to Magnus Westerlund for the TSVART review which had a number of security items of feedback.

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback.
2023-02-23
14 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2023-02-20
14 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2023-02-20
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-02-20
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-02-20
14 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-14.txt
2023-02-20
14 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal)
2023-02-20
14 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2023-02-16
13 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, Vina Ermagan, Mohamed Boucadair, Sharon Barkai, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (IESG state changed)
2023-02-16
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2023-02-16
13 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
The IANA section lists a new "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request-Record" registry, and assigns 1 bit in it, but it is unclear …
[Ballot comment]
The IANA section lists a new "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request-Record" registry, and assigns 1 bit in it, but it is unclear how many remaining unassigned bits are left
2023-02-16
13 Paul Wouters Ballot comment text updated for Paul Wouters
2023-02-16
13 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Magnus for his detailed TSVART review, that resulted in improvement is both transport and security …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Magnus for his detailed TSVART review, that resulted in improvement is both transport and security related issues.

I also strongly agree that this specification needs applicability statement to be added, as it is not aiming for "limited domain". I trust the responsible AD will make sure there will be applicability statement added as agreed here : https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/ytuGgsIoIVwHoLuq-wr2nPVLzJ4/ 

The LISP-SEC requirement has already been addressed by Roman is his ballot, hence supporting that discuss.
2023-02-16
13 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-02-16
13 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I have just one minor comment, in section 3, rather than phrasing this section as deployment assumptions, it …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I have just one minor comment, in section 3, rather than phrasing this section as deployment assumptions, it might be better to phrase this as deployment requirements.

Regards,
Rob
2023-02-16
13 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-02-16
13 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-13
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-13
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Luigi Iannone for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus.

Other thanks to Sheng Jiang, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10-intdir-telechat-jiang-2023-02-09/ and I read the author's reply.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Updating RFC 9301 ?

Like Erik Kline, I wonder whether this I-D should formally update RFC 9301. Or is the IANA registry addition enough ?

### Section 5 and intended status

```
The exact details to characterize such policies are deployment and implementation specific. Likewise, this document does not specify which notifications take precedence when these policies are enforced.
```

This is indeed my biggest concern about this mechanism as it can trigger a flood of Map-Notify when a EIP mapping changes. PubSub is nice when there is one publisher and many potential subscribers but in this specific case it is several publishers to several subscribers with many subscriptions.

An experimental status would be more comforting.

### Missed notification

If for any reason a Map-Notify is missed (e.g., publisher is overloaded), then what is the fall-back ? When a Map-Request gets no response, then the Map-Request can be resent by the xTR but in the case of Map-Notify ? There is some text in section 5, but only from the point of view of the publisher.

### Appendix A.1

The monitoring use case is indeed quite a useful one. My comments above do not really apply in this use case.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
2023-02-16
13 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-02-15
13 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-02-15
13 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well done IANA Considerations section.

In Section 1, in that list of steps, it looks strange that in step 1 …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well done IANA Considerations section.

In Section 1, in that list of steps, it looks strange that in step 1 you send a request, and then in step 2 you mutate a bit on the request.  Is that possible?  Or would it be better to say that in step 1 you construct a request that has this bit set, and in step 2 you send it?

An editorial point: "ITR/RTR/PITR" or some variant of it appears several times.  Could there be a single term that encapsulates all three?  Repeating that cluster of initialisms has me reading it like "this or that or the other" each time, and it feels like it could be simplified.

In Section 5:

"If the Map-Server removes the subscription state, it SHOULD notify the xTR by sending a single Map-Notify with the same nonce but with Loc-Count = 0 (and Loc-AFI = 0), and ACT bits set to 5 "Drop/Auth-Failure"."

Why is this only a SHOULD?

Also in Section 5:

"If the subscription request fails, the Map-Server MUST send a Map-Reply to the originator ..."

That should be a "Negative Map-Reply", right?
2023-02-15
13 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-02-15
13 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot discuss]
** In following the robust discussion in the TSVART thread (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/vcJRc6oXRRiCl5-bouLTyRVbTc8/), it appears that design assumption of this document is to …
[Ballot discuss]
** In following the robust discussion in the TSVART thread (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/vcJRc6oXRRiCl5-bouLTyRVbTc8/), it appears that design assumption of this document is to build on RFC9301 and RFC9303.  Section 3 helpfully outlines unique deployment assumptions for PubSub relative to RFC301.  Missing is an explicit summary of what Alberto stated in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/80yDl25rP3Ev4H_x_rOstue_J7M/.  There appears to be a stronger requirements to use LISP-SEC or associated pre-shared secret to secure this new mechanism which is not the same as the baseline RFC9301 (per Section 1.1).
2023-02-15
13 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Thank you to Chris M. Lonvick for the SECDIR review.

** Thank you to Magnus Westerlund for the TSVART review which had …
[Ballot comment]
** Thank you to Chris M. Lonvick for the SECDIR review.

** Thank you to Magnus Westerlund for the TSVART review which had a number of security items of feedback.

** The shepherd report noted that this document was moved from experimental to PS status based on existing deployment experiment.  As this was the basis of the document status, is it possible read more about these “production networks” that were running “early implementations” as described in Appendix A.  Who were they?  Were all these implementations limited domain?  Any over the Internet?

** Section 1.  Editorial.  Is the “encap” in the phrase “map-and-encap approach” a shortening of “encapsulate”?  Spell it out.

** Section 1.1.  Thanks for added this section based on TSVART review.  Consider if it possible to qualify which of these verification and configurations are handled with practices outside the scope of this document and what can be forward referenced into this document.

** Section 5.
  Otherwise, the Map-Server silently
  drops the Map-Request message and logs the event to record that a
  replay attack could have occurred. 

Why is the guidance to log when observing an attack weaker than the guidance in Section 4 when handling malformed Map-Requests (“In this case, the receiver SHOULD log a malformed Map-Request and MUST drop the message.”)

** Section 5.
  For example, the Map-Server may be instructed to limit the resources
  that are dedicated to unsolicited Map-Notify messages to a small
  fraction (e.g., less than 10%) of its overall processing and
  forwarding capacity. 

What is an unsolicited “Map-Notify” message in the PubSub context?  Is that the PubSub message itself?

** Section 5

  If the Map-Server
  does not keep last nonces seen, then in deployments concerned with
  replay attacks the Map-Server MUST require the xTRs to subscribe
  using the procedure described in Section 7.1 to create a new security
  association with the Map-Server.

What is a “deployment concerned with replay attacks”?  Shouldn’t that be all deployments?  Section 7.1 has similar text.

** Section 7.
  To prevent xTR-ID hijacking, it is RECOMMENDED to follow guidance
  from Section 9 of [RFC9301] to ensure integrity protection of Map-
  Request messages. 

Can this text be more specific on what text in RFC9301 is being referenced. 

** Section 7.1
  First, when the ITR is sending a Map-Request with the N-bit set
  following Section 5, the ITR also performs the steps described in
  Section 5.4 of [RFC9303]. 

RFC9303 doesn’t have a Section 5.4.  Is it Section 6.4?

** Section 7.1
  The ITR can then generate a PubSubKey by
  deriving a key from the One-Time Key (OTK) as follows: PubSubKey =
  KDF( OTK ), where KDF is the Key Derivation Function indicated by the
  OTK Wrapping ID.

Should the Map-Request nonce be used as part of the KDF input?  See Section 3.1 of RFC5869.
2023-02-15
13 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-02-15
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-02-15
13 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-13.txt
2023-02-15
13 (System) New version approved
2023-02-15
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Mohamed Boucadair , Sharon Barkai , Vina Ermagan
2023-02-15
13 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2023-02-14
12 Martin Duke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Magnus for the TSVART review, and the authors for the extended (!) discussion of that review.

I have a few notes: …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Magnus for the TSVART review, and the authors for the extended (!) discussion of that review.

I have a few notes:

(S1) the sequence of events omits the Map-Notify-Ack in response to the initial Map-Notify.

(S5) "If the Map-Request has only one ITR-RLOC with AFI=0..."
I assume this Map-Request has the I-bit set?

(S5) The paragraph about congestion control that begins with "As a reminder..." is probably better in S6, as originally discussed in the thread, because it's the Publish Map-Notifies that are the most likely to trigger congestion.

(S6) Just to clarify, the Map-Notify has no change from RFC9301 with respect to flags (unlike the Map-Request)?

(S6) "...it may stop trying to send the Map-Notify"
This seems too weak to me; why not cancel the subscription, or better yet, cancel all subscriptions to that xTR if it's unresponsive?
2023-02-14
12 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-02-14
12 Luigi Iannone
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12.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-pubsub-12.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?

  The document was originally targeting "Experimental" status. After WG last call (and after a fist version of this write up) the authors raised the question of whether to move it to Standard Track. Alvaro Retana (responsible AD) asked to document deployment experience, which has been done by the authors by adding a new section starting in revision -10 of the document. The LISP WG chairs did also query the WG participants through the mailing list and there was a clear support to move the document to "Standard Track", which has been done since revision -10.


(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 document propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub) mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly notified when changes actually take place.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document.

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, YANG 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?

  Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has Nits". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(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.
  I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean (just one warning for an old reference) and the output for the -12 version of the document is provided on point 11.



(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 (other than the usual area reviews).



(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. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this 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 IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(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 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 2.17.1

draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12.txt:
-(729): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There is 1 instance of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
    draft-boucadair-lisp-pubsub-flow-examples-01


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).

    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, YANG 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?

  The document contains both normative and informative references clearly 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?

  No normative reference is 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 8126).

  The document has two IANA actions:

  1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by allocating a new bit as follows:
    +======+===============+==========+=============+===============+
    | Spec | IANA Name    | Bit      | Description | Reference    |
    | Name |              | Position |            |              |
    +======+===============+==========+=============+===============+
    | I    | Map-Request-I | 11      | xTR-ID Bit  | This-Document |
    +------+---------------+----------+-------------+---------------+

  2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and populated as follows:
  +====+=============+========+========================+=============+
  |Spec|IANA Name    |Bit    | Description            |Reference    |
  |Name|            |Position|                        |            |
  +====+=============+========+========================+=============+
  |N  |Map-Request-N|1      | Notification-Requested |This-Document|
  |    |            |        | Bit                    |            |
  +----+-------------+--------+------------------------+-------------+


(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 for future allocations 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, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.
2023-02-13
12 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-02-13
12 Amanda Baber IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK
2023-02-13
12 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-12.txt
2023-02-13
12 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal)
2023-02-13
12 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2023-02-13
11 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Much thanks to Al Morton for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10-opsdir-lc-morton-2023-01-22/)
I'm at a conference (NANOG) this week, and so the OpsDir …
[Ballot comment]
Much thanks to Al Morton for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10-opsdir-lc-morton-2023-01-22/)
I'm at a conference (NANOG) this week, and so the OpsDir reviews are especially useful.

I've provided some nits below -- feel free to address them when making other changes, or ignore them (they are just nits):
1: "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300] [RFC9301] splits IP addresses in two different namespaces" - I think this is: "splits IP addresses into two different namespaces"

2: "It is RECOMMENDED that the xTR uses persistent storage to keep nonce state." - I think this would be better as: "to keep the none state"

3: "The Map-Server that receives the Map-Request will be the Map-Server responsible to notify that specific xTR " -> "responsible for notifying"

4: "A similar problem may be experienced when a large number of state were simultaneously updated." - "states are"

5: "Alternatively, the Map-Server can instead determine that such subscription request fails, and send" - "requests fail"

6: "When the ITR wants to update the security association for that Map-Server and EID-Prefix, it follows again the procedure described in this section."  -- I think that this is either "it follows the procedure described in this section again.", or 9probably better) "it once again follows..."

7: "Note that if the Map-Server replies with a Map-Notify, none of the regular LISP-SEC steps regarding Map-Reply described in Section 5.7 of [RFC9303] takes place." - for readability, I think this would be better as "take place" or "occur".

8: "Misbehaving nodes may send massive subscription requests which may lead to exhaust the resources of a Map-Server" - "exhausting"

9: (Appendix): "The following subsections provides an inventory of some experience lessons from these deployments." - "provide"
2023-02-13
11 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-02-13
11 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cR9bos2756DfJOE43Wen3byzgyk). …
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cR9bos2756DfJOE43Wen3byzgyk).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-boucadair-lisp-pubsub-flow-examples-01`, but `-03`
is the latest available revision.

### URLs

These URLs in the document did not return content:

* https://www.lisp-lab.org

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 8
```
les] for sample flows to illustrate the the use of the PubSub specification.
                                    ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5, paragraph 16
```
Notification Publish Procedures The publish procedure is implemented via Map
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
After "The", the verb "publish" doesn't fit. Is "publish" spelled correctly? If
"publish" is the first word in a compound adjective, use a hyphen between the
two words. Using the verb "publish" as a noun may be non-standard.

#### Section 9.1, paragraph 3
```
e time. The following subsections provides an inventory of some experience le
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
The verb form "provides" does not seem to match the subject "subsections".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
2023-02-13
11 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2023-02-12
11 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11
CC @ekline

## Comments

* Should this update RFC 9301 (since it's modifying the Map-Request)?
  (debated …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11
CC @ekline

## Comments

* Should this update RFC 9301 (since it's modifying the Map-Request)?
  (debated making this a trivial-to-fix DISCUSS)
2023-02-12
11 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-02-10
11 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this well-crafted (albeit dense) document.

I have one question. While I don't think it needs to be a blocking issue, I'd …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this well-crafted (albeit dense) document.

I have one question. While I don't think it needs to be a blocking issue, I'd still appreciate discussion. In Section 7.1, you write,

                              If PubSub is being used in an environment
  where replay attacks might occur, then the Map-Server MUST verify
  that the OTK has not been used before.

I strained to think of a realistic deployment where the threat model was one where security was required, but replay protection was NOT required. Can you provide an example of one?
2023-02-10
11 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-02-10
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-02-10
11 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-11.txt
2023-02-10
11 Mohamed Boucadair New version approved
2023-02-10
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Mohamed Boucadair , Sharon Barkai , Vina Ermagan
2023-02-10
11 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2023-02-09
10 Sheng Jiang Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang.
2023-02-09
10 Sheng Jiang Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-02-01
10 Bernie Volz Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang
2023-02-01
10 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2023-01-31
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2023-01-27
10 Luigi Iannone
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10.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-pubsub-10.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?

  The document was originally targeting "Experimental" status. After WG last call (and after a fist version of this write up) the authors raised the question of whether to move it to Standard Track. Alvaro Retana (responsible AD) asked to document deployment experience, which has been done by the authors by adding a new section starting in revision -10 of the document. The LISP WG chairs did also query the WG participants through the mailing list and there was a clear support to move the document to "Standard Track", which has been done since revision -10.


(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 document propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub) mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly notified when changes actually take place.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document.

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, YANG 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?

  Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has Nits". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(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.
  I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11.



(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 (other than the usual area reviews).



(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. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this 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 IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(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 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 2.17.1

draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (6 January 2023) is 21 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of
    draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-10

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6830
    (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301)


    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).

    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, YANG 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?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(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 normative reference is 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.
  There is an obsolete normative reference, but discussion did already take place to remove it in the next revision.



(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 8126).

  The document has two IANA actions:

  1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by allocating a new bit as follows:
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
      | Spec Name | IANA Name    | Bit Position | Description |
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
      | I        | map-request-I | 11          | xTR-ID Bit  |
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+

  2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and populated as follows:
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
      | Spec    | IANA Name    | Bit        | Description              |
      | Name    |              | Position    |                          |
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
      | N        | map-request-N | 1          | Notification-Requested  |
      |          |              |            | Bit                      |
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+


(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 for future allocations 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, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.
2023-01-26
10 Chris Lonvick Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
2023-01-26
10 Chris Lonvick Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-01-26
10 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-02-16
2023-01-26
10 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2023-01-26
10 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2023-01-26
10 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2023-01-26
10 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2023-01-26
10 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2023-01-26
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2023-01-24
10 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even.
2023-01-24
10 Roni Even Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-01-24
10 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund. Sent review to list.
2023-01-23
10 Mike McBride Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mike McBride.
2023-01-23
10 Mike McBride Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mike McBride. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-01-22
10 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Magnus Westerlund
2023-01-22
10 Al Morton Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Al Morton. Sent review to list.
2023-01-20
10 Joseph Touch Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Joseph Touch was rejected
2023-01-20
10 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch
2023-01-19
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2023-01-18
10 Tommy Pauly Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Tommy Pauly was rejected
2023-01-18
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2023-01-18
10 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request registry on the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/

Spec Name: I
IANA Name: map-request-I
BIT Position: 11
Description: xTR-ID Bit
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, a new registry is to be created called the LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request-Record registry. The new registry will be located on the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/

The new registry will be maintained using Specification Required as defined by RFC8126. There is a single, initial registration in the new registry as follows:

Spec Name: N
IANA Name: map-request-N
BIT Position: 1
Description: Notification-Requested Bit
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2023-01-16
10 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Tommy Pauly
2023-01-16
10 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride
2023-01-13
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2023-01-13
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Al Morton
2023-01-12
10 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-01-12
10 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-01-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Publish/Subscribe Functionality for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG
(lisp) to consider the following document: - 'Publish/Subscribe Functionality
for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
  (LISP)'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-01-26. 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 specifies an extension to the request/reply based
  Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control plane to enable
  Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub/



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




2023-01-12
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Experimental
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-01-12
10 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2023-01-06
10 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2023-01-06
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2023-01-06
10 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-10.txt
2023-01-06
10 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal)
2023-01-06
10 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2022-11-08
09 Luigi Iannone Added to session: IETF-115: lisp  Tue-1630
2022-04-25
09 Alvaro Retana === AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 ===
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JaMPmkn28HfYzyHMA48Hdp53s9Y/
2022-04-25
09 (System) Changed action holders to Sharon Barkai, Alvaro Retana, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, Vina Ermagan, Mohamed Boucadair, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (IESG state changed)
2022-04-25
09 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-04-25
09 Alvaro Retana Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-04-25
09 (System) Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed)
2022-04-25
09 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.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-pubsub-09.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 document is targeting "Experimental" status. It is the proper type of RFC since the mechanism proposed is relatively recent and more experimental deployment knowledge is desirable. The RFC type is clearly 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:

  This document propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub) mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly notified when changes actually take place.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document.

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, YANG 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?

  Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has Nits". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(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.
  I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11.



(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 (other than the usual area reviews).



(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. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this 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 IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(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 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.

dnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (June 28, 2021) is 9 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 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, YANG 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?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(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?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue.



(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 8126).

  The document has two IANA actions:

  1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by allocating a new bit as follows:
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
      | Spec Name | IANA Name    | Bit Position | Description |
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
      | I        | map-request-I | 11          | xTR-ID Bit  |
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+

  2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and populated as follows:
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
      | Spec    | IANA Name    | Bit        | Description              |
      | Name    |              | Position    |                          |
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
      | N        | map-request-N | 1          | Notification-Requested  |
      |          |              |            | Bit                      |
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+


(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 for future allocations 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, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2021-07-19
09 Luigi Iannone
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.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-pubsub-09.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 document is targeting "Experimental" status. It is the proper type of RFC since the mechanism proposed is relatively recent and more experimental deployment knowledge is desirable. The RFC type is clearly 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:

  This document propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub) mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly notified when changes actually take place.

Working Group Summary:

  The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document.

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, YANG 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?

  Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has Nits". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?

  Luigi Iannone

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Alvaro Retana



(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.
  I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately.
  I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11.



(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 (other than the usual area reviews).



(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. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this 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 IPR disclosures have been filed concerning this specific document.


(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 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.

dnits 2.16.05

tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (June 28, 2021) is 9 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 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, YANG 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?

  The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference.


(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?

  The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue.



(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 8126).

  The document has two IANA actions:

  1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by allocating a new bit as follows:
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
      | Spec Name | IANA Name    | Bit Position | Description |
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
      | I        | map-request-I | 11          | xTR-ID Bit  |
      +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+

  2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and populated as follows:
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
      | Spec    | IANA Name    | Bit        | Description              |
      | Name    |              | Position    |                          |
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
      | N        | map-request-N | 1          | Notification-Requested  |
      |          |              |            | Bit                      |
      +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+


(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 for future allocations 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, YANG modules, etc.

  The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed.



(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  The document does not contain any YANG module.
2021-06-28
09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt
2021-06-28
09 (System) New version approved
2021-06-28
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Mohamed Boucadair , Sharon Barkai , Vina Ermagan
2021-06-28
09 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2021-02-03
08 Luigi Iannone Notification list changed to ggx@gigix.net because the document shepherd was set
2021-02-03
08 Luigi Iannone Document shepherd changed to Luigi Iannone
2021-02-03
08 Luigi Iannone Started WG LC on 13 January
2021-02-03
08 Luigi Iannone IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2021-02-02
08 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-08.txt
2021-02-02
08 (System) New version approved
2021-02-02
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Mohamed Boucadair , Sharon Barkai , Vina Ermagan
2021-02-02
08 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2021-01-08
07 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-07.txt
2021-01-08
07 (System) New version approved
2021-01-08
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Mohamed Boucadair , Sharon Barkai , Vina Ermagan
2021-01-08
07 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2020-11-18
06 Luigi Iannone Added to session: IETF-109: lisp  Thu-1200
2020-10-08
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2020-10-01
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick.
2020-09-24
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2020-09-24
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick
2020-09-17
06 Joel Halpern Requested Early review by SECDIR
2020-07-10
06 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06.txt
2020-07-10
06 (System) New version approved
2020-07-10
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Sharon Barkai , Christian Jacquenet , Fabio Maino , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Mohamed Boucadair , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Sharon Barkai , Christian Jacquenet , Fabio Maino , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Mohamed Boucadair , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Stefano Secci , Vina Ermagan , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci
2020-07-10
06 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2020-03-18
05 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-05.txt
2020-03-18
05 (System) New version approved
2020-03-18
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Mohamed Boucadair , Dino Farinacci , Stefano Secci , Johnson Leong , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Mohamed Boucadair , Dino Farinacci , Stefano Secci , Johnson Leong , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Fabio Maino , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Christian Jacquenet , Sharon Barkai , Vina Ermagan
2020-03-18
05 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2020-03-14
04 (System) Document has expired
2019-09-11
04 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-04.txt
2019-09-11
04 (System) New version approved
2019-09-11
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair , Stefano Secci , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair , Stefano Secci , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Sharon Barkai , Christian Jacquenet , Vina Ermagan , Fabio Maino
2019-09-11
04 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2019-03-11
03 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-03.txt
2019-03-11
03 (System) New version approved
2019-03-11
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Mohamed Boucadair , Stefano Secci , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Johnson Leong , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Mohamed Boucadair , Stefano Secci , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Sharon Barkai , Christian Jacquenet , Fabio Maino
2019-03-11
03 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2018-11-03
02 Luigi Iannone Added to session: IETF-103: lisp  Mon-0900
2018-11-03
02 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-02.txt
2018-11-03
02 (System) New version approved
2018-11-03
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair , Vina Ermagan , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair , Vina Ermagan , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Sharon Barkai , Christian Jacquenet , Stefano Secci , Fabio Maino
2018-11-03
02 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2018-10-04
01 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-01.txt
2018-10-04
01 (System) New version approved
2018-10-04
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Mohamed Boucadair , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Mohamed Boucadair , Johnson Leong , Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Sharon Barkai , Christian Jacquenet , Stefano Secci , Fabio Maino
2018-10-04
01 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision
2018-04-25
00 Joel Halpern This document now replaces draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub instead of None
2018-04-25
00 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-00.txt
2018-04-25
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-04-25
00 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Set submitter to "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal ", replaces to draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub and sent approval email to group chairs: lisp-chairs@ietf.org
2018-04-25
00 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Uploaded new revision