Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Node Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-01-07
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-11-30
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-11-23
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.shepherd@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.ad@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-08
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-10-08
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-10-01
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2015-09-30
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-09-30
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-09-30
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-09-29
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-09-29
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-09-29
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-09-29
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-09-29
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-09-29
|
08 | IJsbrand Wijnands | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-09-29
|
08 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-08.txt |
2015-09-25
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-09-21
|
07 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2015-09-17
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-09-17
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-09-17
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-09-17
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-09-17
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-09-16
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-09-16
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-09-16
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-09-16
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for adding the new security consideration text. If you change again please consider this tweak: s/(a PLR or a MPT)/(e.g., a PLR … [Ballot comment] Thanks for adding the new security consideration text. If you change again please consider this tweak: s/(a PLR or a MPT)/(e.g., a PLR or a MPT)/ |
2015-09-16
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-09-16
|
07 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-07.txt |
2015-09-15
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-09-15
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-09-15
|
06 | IJsbrand Wijnands | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-09-15
|
06 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-06.txt |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] The MUST in para 2 section 3 seems to me to create a possibly new DoS enabler. The ability of N to cause … [Ballot discuss] The MUST in para 2 section 3 seems to me to create a possibly new DoS enabler. The ability of N to cause this kind of ripple effect, (setting up then pushing traffic to a bunch of new LSPs), is what may be new. Exactly where in the referenced RFCs is that covered? Or am I wrong that this is a new threat? (BTW: Answering that this new threat is no worse than other existing threats if one has access to the internals of a node.... is a non-answer:-) |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] While it is fine to re-use text, it is increasingly hard to believe that almost nothing done since RFC5920 (dated in 2010) has … [Ballot comment] While it is fine to re-use text, it is increasingly hard to believe that almost nothing done since RFC5920 (dated in 2010) has any new security considerations. Put another way, who is really helped by a 2 line security considerations section that points at 6388 which points at 5036 (etc)? |
2015-09-15
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] The shepherd writup says that there has been no explicit discussion of the two IPR disclosures. It's probably too late to worry about … [Ballot comment] The shepherd writup says that there has been no explicit discussion of the two IPR disclosures. It's probably too late to worry about that for this draft, and both disclosures have the fairly common "we won't assert if you don't" terms. But I think we should encourage working groups to have more explicit discussion for IPR disclosures. -- 2.3, last paragraph: "Along with the PLR MP Status a MP FEC TLV MUST be included" Does that mean that both MUST be included, or if the first is included, the second MUST also be? -- 4.1.3, last paragraph: Just “recommended”? Is link flapping a minor enough that it doesn't justify a MUST? -- 6: It would be nice to show your work a bit more in the security considerations. This draft adds new protocol elements and procedures. If the working group has determined that those new bits add no new security concerns, it would be good to say why. Editorial and Nits: A (probably first) paragraph in the intro that defined exactly what the draft means by "protection" would be helpful. (The existing first paragraph talks about how you provide protection, but one must infer what this protects _against_. -- 1, 2nd paragraph: Lots of the terms here could use (informative) citations. -- 2.1, first paragraph: Consider s/"we are describing"/"we describe" -- 2.1, last paragraph, 2nd to last sentence, "See section 5": unbalanced parentheses. -- 2.2, 1st paragraph: s/"we are describing"/"we describe" -- 2.2, last paragraph: "protection mechanism don’t" -- Noun/verb disagreement (singular/plural) s/ help restoring/help restore -- 2.3, 2nd to last paragraph: I suggest the “A node N” phrase be moved to the first mention of N in this paragraph. "Removing a PLR address is likely due to a link failure, see the procedures as documented in Section 4.1. ": Comma splice. Consider a semicolon. "MUST encode PLR Status Value Element": Missing article. -- 3, 2nd paragraph: "Ln that was assigned to N via the normal mLDP procedures, and Label Lpx that was assigned for PLR (LSR1) for the purpose of node protecting MP LSP via node N." I can’t parse this sentence. (Incomplete sentence?) -- 3, 3rd paragraph: "For this reason, the FEC Label Mapping (FEC : Lpx) sent by the MPT over the tLDP session to the PLR MUST include a Status TLV with MP Status including a new LDP MP status Value Element called the "Protected Node Status Value Element"." Convoluted sentence. Consider breaking into multiple, simpler sentences. -- 5, 1st sentence: s/we are organizing/we organize/ |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] How long has this document been sitting around? The shepherd writeup says "Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD". |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Ballot comment text updated for Brian Haberman |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-09-14
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-09-11
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-09-11
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-09-17 |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-09-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-09-08
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-09-08
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-09-08
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-09-08
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Thomas Clausen |
2015-09-08
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Thomas Clausen |
2015-09-08
|
05 | Shaun Cooley | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shaun Cooley. |
2015-09-08
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-09-01
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-09-01
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-08-31
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-08-31
|
05 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the LDP MP Status Value Element type subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ two, new element types will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: PLR Status Value Element Reference: [ RfC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Name: Protected Node Status Value Element Reference: [ RfC-to-be ] Second, in the TLV Type Name Space also in the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ a single, new TLV will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: MP Node Protection Capability Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-08-28
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2015-08-28
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2015-08-27
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-08-27
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-08-27
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley |
2015-08-27
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shaun Cooley |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (mLDP Node Protection) to Proposed … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (mLDP Node Protection) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'mLDP Node Protection' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-09-08. 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 procedures to support node protection for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths (MP LSPs) that has been built by "Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol"(mLDP). In order to protect a node N, the Point of Local Repair (PLR) LSR of N must learn the Merge Point (MPT) LSR(s) of node N such that traffic can be redirected to them in case node N fails. Redirecting the traffic around the failed node N depends on existing P2P LSPs. The pre-established LSPs originate from the PLR LSR and terminate on the MPT LSRs while bypassing LSR N. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2116/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1727/ |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tony Przygienda |
2015-08-25
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tony Przygienda |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to John Drake was rejected |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Nabil Bitar |
2015-08-20
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Nabil Bitar |
2015-08-19
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to John Drake |
2015-08-19
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to John Drake |
2015-08-19
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Manav Bhatia was rejected |
2015-08-18
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Manav Bhatia |
2015-08-18
|
05 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Manav Bhatia |
2015-07-09
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-03-25
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS working group requests that mLDP Node … The MPLS working group requests that mLDP Node Protection draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05 is published as an RFC on the standards track! (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? We request that the document is published as a Proposed Standard. This is the right type of RFC since the document both specifies protocol procedures and protocol elements. The document says Standard Tracks. (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 describes procedures to support node protection for P2P and MP2MP LSPs built by mLDP. In order to protect a node N, the Point of Local Repair (PLR) of N must learn the Merge Point (MPT) LSR(s) of node N to be able to redirected traffic if node N fails. Redirecting the traffic around the failed node N depends on existing P2P LSPs from the PLRto the MPTs bypassing node N. The procedures to setup these P2P LSPs are outside the scope of this document, but one could use RSVP-TE or LDP LFA based techniques to accomplish this. The solution described in this document signals the MPT LSR(s) to the PLR LSR(s) via a Targeted LDP (tLDP) session [RFC5036]. By having a tLDP session with the PLR, most of the mLDP features currently defined should just work, like Make-Before-Break (MBB), Graceful Restart (GR), Typed Wildcard FEC support, etc. All this is achieved at the expense of having an additional tLDP session between an MPT and PLR. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing worth noting, the progress through the working group, from the adoption poll to the wglc has been smooth. The working group is behind the idea that different a full set of tools for different protection scenarios, this draft is one of them. 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? We do not currently know any implementations, but an implementation poll has been sent to the working group mailing list and the Write-up will be updated as soon as we receive more information. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson is the document shepherd Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The doucment was reviewed by the shepherd when if was first posted to the working group, in preparation for the working group adoption poll, when preparing the wglc and while writing the Shepherds Write-up. The Shepherd believes that the document is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such 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 such reviews necessary. (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. No such concerns! (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 stated on the MPLS wg mailing list that they are unaware of any other IPRs than those already disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are two IPRs disclosed against this document, the working has been notified (at wg poll and wglc), but there has been no explicit discussion. The working group chair take this to mean that the working group are comfortable with the disclosed IPRs. (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? The working group as a whole support this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such threats. (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. The document passes the nits tool clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal reviews needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes the references are correctly identified as normative and informative. (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? All references (even informative) are to existing RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward 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. The publication will not change status of any existing RFC. (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 Shepherd first reviewed the IANA section when this was on individual document, and proposed substantial changes. The IANA section has not really changed since then. The document does not create any new registries. (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 new IANA registries, so no registries that needs Expert Review. (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. No automated reviews, except the nits-tool is necessary. |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-02-24
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Notification list changed to mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.shepherd@ietf.org, loa@pi.nu, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection.ad@ietf.org |
2015-02-24
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-09
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-09
|
05 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05.txt |
2015-02-09
|
04 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-04.txt |
2015-02-08
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-06
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-06
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-02-03
|
03 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-03.txt |
2015-01-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-01-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2015-01-14
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2014-11-13
|
02 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-02.txt |
2014-08-04
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2014-07-21
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2014-07-21
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2014-06-17
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Working Group chair review will be done as part of the wglc. IPR poll be done in parallel |
2014-06-17
|
01 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-03-18
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Preparing wglc. |
2014-03-18
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2014-03-18
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2014-03-18
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-02-13
|
01 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-01.txt |
2013-08-06
|
00 | IJsbrand Wijnands | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-00.txt |