Skip to main content

Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-15

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-08-04
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2021-07-07
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2021-04-21
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2021-04-14
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2020-06-08
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2020-06-08
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2020-06-08
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2020-06-05
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2020-06-01
15 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2020-06-01
15 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2020-06-01
15 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2020-06-01
15 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2020-06-01
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2020-06-01
15 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2020-06-01
15 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2020-06-01
15 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2020-06-01
15 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2020-06-01
15 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-15.txt
2020-06-01
15 (System) New version approved
2020-06-01
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Matthew Bocci , Stephane Litkowski , Xiaohu Xu , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini
2020-06-01
15 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2020-05-31
14 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point
that were left after that, as well as …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for educating me, and addressing the minor residual remains of my discuss point
that were left after that, as well as my comments.
2020-05-31
14 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2020-05-28
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-05-28
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2020-05-28
14 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-14.txt
2020-05-28
14 (System) New version approved
2020-05-28
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Matthew Bocci , Sriganesh Kini
2020-05-28
14 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2020-05-21
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2020-05-20
13 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2020-05-20
13 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
I wasn't clear on where the  thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the …
[Ballot comment]
I wasn't clear on where the  thread ended up from the Gen-ART review, but I'm nevertheless suggesting some text below to resolve the main sticking point.

OLD
If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.

NEW
If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF. The absence of these advertisements implies that advertisement of the ELC is not supported.

Not sure if that matches the intent though.
2020-05-20
13 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2020-05-20
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2020-05-20
13 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2020-05-20
13 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2020-05-19
13 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
I have a question about the scope of some normative language, which may
or may not be problematic but I'm too ignorant of …
[Ballot discuss]
I have a question about the scope of some normative language, which may
or may not be problematic but I'm too ignorant of OSPF details to be
able to answer myself.  In Section 3 we say that:

  When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between
  connected areas it MUST preserve the ELC setting.

My undesrtanding is that it's normal operation for an ABR to
distribution information about prefixes and such between areas, and in
particular that an ABR does not necessarily need to know the semantic
details of every bit of information being distributed in that fashion.
So, I am imagining a scenario where some routers in both areas
advertise/understand the ELC flag but the ABR between them does not
implement this spec.  What would happen in such a scenario?  If the ABR
is still expected to distribute the ELC setting without change, isn't
that just a core requirement from the respective OSPF specs, as opposed
to a new requirement imposed by this spec (which, in this scenario, the
ABR is not claiming to adhere to anyway)?

There is perhaps a similar question about the ASBR guidance, though when
doing cross-protocol signalling there is a more clear need for the ASBR
to understand the semantics of the flags it is redistributing (and it's
only a "SHOULD").
2020-05-19
13 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Section 1

The abstract is pretty explicit that "this draft defines" both ELC and
ERLD signaling capabilities, but this section only has a …
[Ballot comment]
Section 1

The abstract is pretty explicit that "this draft defines" both ELC and
ERLD signaling capabilities, but this section only has a clear statement
for the ELC.  Should we put something at the end of the last paragraph
about "this document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using OSPFv2
and OSPFv3"?

  In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be

side note(?): I don't know that SR-MPLS is so popular so as to be
privileged as the only example given for LSP usage.  If we instead
talked about using IGPs to signal labels, this selection would seem less
surprising to me.

Section 3

  If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD
  advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.

Do we want to say anything about (not) advertising the ELC for other
prefixes?

Section 7

Should we say anything about considerations for redistributing ELC/ERLD
information at the ASBR with respect to exposing "internal information"
to external parties?

  This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node
  capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS.  As such, the security
  considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752],
  [RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662],

RFC 8662's security considerations have a pretty hard dependency on RFC
6790
's security considerations; it might be worth mentioning 6790
directly in this list as well.

  [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and
  [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this
  document.

Could we also have a brief note that the (respective) OSPF security
mechanisms serve to protect the ELC/ERLD information?

  Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or
  redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress
  node.

This is what happens when the E flag should not be set but is
erroneously set.  Should we also say what happens if we should set the E
flag but erroneously clear it (e.g., that poor or no load-balancing may
occur)?

Section 8

I do see the note in the shepherd writeup about the sixth author (thank
you!); if we're already breaking through the 5-author limit, did we
consider making those who "should be considered as co-authors" listed as
co-authors?

Section 10.2

It's slightly surprising to see the core OSPF protocols only listed as
informative, but I can see how they are to be considered "basic
specifications" in the vein of
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
2020-05-19
13 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2020-05-19
13 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2020-05-19
13 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

This is a straight forward document, thanks.

Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement?  If so, is …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

This is a straight forward document, thanks.

Is there any associated YANG module required to manage this protocol enhancement?  If so, is that already being worked or, or planned work for the WG?

Regards,
Rob
2020-05-19
13 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2020-05-16
13 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]
* "(e.g., SR-MPLS" is missing a closing parenthesis

[ section 3 ]
* "...unless all of …
[Ballot comment]
[[ nits ]]

[ section 1 ]
* "(e.g., SR-MPLS" is missing a closing parenthesis

[ section 3 ]
* "...unless all of its interfaces...":" do management interfaces, or other
  interfaces over which no forwarding is taking place, count in this definition
  of "all"?  If not, does this text need to be tightened or is this just one
  of those things all implementers will naturally figure out? (I'm actually
  betting this is just something readers will intuit.)
2020-05-16
13 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2020-05-14
13 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2020-05-14
13 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Nit: “ When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a  prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other …
[Ballot comment]
Nit: “ When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a  prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol,  it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix.“

S/the /OSPF/OSPF/.

S/for the prefix/for the prefix (if it exists)/ — some protocols will not have / carry the ELC.


Apologies if I missed it, but I didn’t see discussion on *exporting* ELC into other protocols...
2020-05-14
13 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2020-05-11
13 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read.

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENTs and two …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read.

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENTs and two NITs.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENT ==

For my own curiosity, is there a possibility that a router receives conflicting node capability via OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 (assuming that both are running over the same network and using the same router-ID over OSPFv2 and OSPFv3) ?
 
== NITS ==

-- section 4 --
The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." even if we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)

-- Sections 3 & 4 --
Is there a meaningful difference between the "advertizing" of section 3 and the "signaling" of section 4?
2020-05-11
13 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2020-05-06
13 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list.
2020-05-05
13 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
As with the IS-IS document, I assume the presence of six authors, above our usual limit of five, was approved by your AD. …
[Ballot comment]
As with the IS-IS document, I assume the presence of six authors, above our usual limit of five, was approved by your AD.

I agree with Barry's point that this document and the IS-IS document could easily have been combined.  Even some of the syntactical things he corrected are present in both documents.

When would you ever not do what the two SHOULDs in Section 3 say?
2020-05-05
13 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2020-05-05
13 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
— Section 1 —

  In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be

Nit: you need a …
[Ballot comment]
— Section 1 —

  In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be

Nit: you need a closing parenthesis instead of the second comma.

  This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
  Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to

Nit: this needs a comma after the citation.

— Section 3 —

  When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between

Nit: the abbreviation “ABR” is not used elsewhere in the document, so there’s no reason to include it.

— Section 3.1 —

  Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field.

Nit: hyphenate “one-octet” as a compound modifier.

— Section 4 —

  The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the
  ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].

Just checking: is the IS-IS draft the right reference here in this OSPF document?

There does seem to be so much common text between that document and this one that I really don’t understand why these (the IS-IS and OSPF signaling) were not put into one document, and this reference really drives that home.
2020-05-05
13 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2020-05-05
13 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-05-21
2020-05-05
13 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2020-05-05
13 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2020-05-05
13 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2020-05-05
13 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2020-05-05
13 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2020-05-05
13 Dhruv Dhody Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list.
2020-05-05
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2020-05-04
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2020-05-04
13 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13. 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-ospf-mpls-elc-13. 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 OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry on the Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/

the existing early registration for:

Value: 0x20
Description: ELC-flag

will be made permanent, its name changed to E-Flag and the reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Value: 0x20
Description: E-Flag (ELC Flag)
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits) registry on the Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/

the existing early registration for:

Value: 0x40
Description: ELC-bit

will be made permanent, have its name changed to E-Flag, and have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Value: 0x40
Description: E-Flag (ELC Flag)
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.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2020-04-30
13 Joseph Salowey Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. Sent review to list.
2020-04-23
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2020-04-23
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2020-04-23
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2020-04-23
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey
2020-04-22
13 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2020-04-22
13 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2020-04-21
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2020-04-21
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2020-04-20
13 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2020-04-20
13 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-05-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: aretana.ietf@gmail.com, acee@cisco.com, draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth Using OSPF) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to
consider the following document: - 'Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
Entropy Readable Label Depth
  Using OSPF'
  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 2020-05-05. 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


  Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-
  balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL).  An ingress Label
  Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
  given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
  via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
  as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel.  In addition,
  it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
  reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
  balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD).  This
  document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
  OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2313/





2020-04-20
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was changed
2020-04-20
13 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2020-04-17
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-04-17
13 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13.txt
2020-04-17
13 (System) New version approved
2020-04-17
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Bocci , Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils
2020-04-17
13 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2020-02-28
12 Alvaro Retana ==== AD Review of draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-10 ====
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/kmiiSQippuhZ3VbPr-S88Ga3Oyw/
2020-02-28
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2020-02-28
12 Alvaro Retana This document now replaces draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld instead of draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc
2020-02-26
12 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2020-02-26
12 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
2019-10-25
12 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12.txt
2019-10-25
12 (System) New version approved
2019-10-25
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Matthew Bocci , Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu
2019-10-25
12 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2019-10-24
11 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
    header?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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 specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix
      advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy
      Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing.
      Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy
      Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the
      existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476.
      Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs
      is specified.

Working Group Summary:
   
    The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in
    requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However,
    a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix
    advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was
    required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into
    the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth
    author was added.
   

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone
      through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready
      for publication. There have also been several side meetings

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
    for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
    to the IESG.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list. Additionally,
    the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency
    with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully 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.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

      No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

      None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

      Yes - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

      No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

      Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the
      RFC 8174 reference.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
 
      No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
    If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
    in the Last Call procedure.

      No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in
    the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
    not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point
    to the part of the document where the relationship of this document
    to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
    document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

      No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of
    the document.  Confirm that all protocol extensions that the
    document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
    IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have
    been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
    include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
    registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
    defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
    suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The IANA considerations section is clear and early allocations have
    been made for the requested code points.
 
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4

(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 registries are required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      Not applicable.

2019-10-24
11 Acee Lindem This document now replaces draft-xu-ospf-mpls-elc instead of None
2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
    header?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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 specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix
      advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy
      Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing.
      Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy
      Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the
      existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476.
      Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs
      is specified.

Working Group Summary:
   
    The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in
    requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However,
    a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix
    advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was
    required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into
    the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth
    author was added.
   

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone
      through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready
      for publication. There have also been several side meetings

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
    for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
    to the IESG.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list. Additionally,
    the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency
    with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully 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.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

      No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

      None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

      No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding
      IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

      No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

      Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the
      RFC 8174 reference.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
 
      No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
    If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
    in the Last Call procedure.

      No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in
    the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
    not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point
    to the part of the document where the relationship of this document
    to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
    document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

      No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of
    the document.  Confirm that all protocol extensions that the
    document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
    IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have
    been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
    include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
    registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
    defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
    suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The IANA considerations section is clear and early allocations have
    been made for the requested code points.
 
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4

(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 registries are required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      Not applicable.

2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
    header?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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 specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix
      advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy
      Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing.
      Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy
      Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the
      existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476.
      Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs
      is specified.

Working Group Summary:
   
    The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in
    requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However,
    a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix
    advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was
    required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into
    the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth
    author was added.
   

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone
      through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready
      for publication. There have also been several side meetings

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
    for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
    to the IESG.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. Additionally,
    the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency
    with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully 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.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

      No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

      None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

      No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding
      IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

      No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

      Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the
      RFC 8174 reference.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
 
      No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
    If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
    in the Last Call procedure.

      No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in
    the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
    not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point
    to the part of the document where the relationship of this document
    to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
    document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

      No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of
    the document.  Confirm that all protocol extensions that the
    document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
    IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have
    been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
    include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
    registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
    defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
    suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The IANA considerations section is clear and early allocations have
    been made for the requested code points.
 
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4

(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 registries are required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      Not applicable.

2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
    proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
    header?

      A Standards Track RFC is being requested and is 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 specifies extensions to OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix
      advertisement to indicate whether or not a prefix is Entropy
      Label Capable (ELC), i.e., eligible for entropy label processing.
      Additionally, a new MSD type is defined to advertise the Entropy
      Readable Label Depth (ERLD). The ELRD will be advertised using the
      existing Maximum SID Depth (MSD) encodings defined in RFC 8476.
      Finally, the mapping of these extensions to existing BGP-LS encodigs
      is specified.

Working Group Summary:
   
    The draft went through multiple iterations due to a change in
    requirements. Originally, the ELC was a node-level attribute. However,
    a Service Provider (SP) use case relating to external prefix
    advertisement required per-prefix advertisement. A second change was
    required when the BGP-LS encodings specification was incorporated into
    the draft. Since this incorporation obviated the BGP-LS draft, a sixth
    author was added.
   

Document Quality:

      This document has been a WG document over 4 years. While it has gone
      through several iterations, we are now confident that it is ready
      for publication. There have also been several side meetings

Personnel:

      Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd.
      Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
    for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
    to the IESG.

    The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document
    and followed the discussion on the OSPF mailing list. Additionally,
    the document shepherd provided editorial updates for consistency
    with other OSPF RFCs. The document shepherd fully 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.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review
    that took place.

      No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or
    the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
    uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
    whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
    discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
    advance the document, detail those concerns here.

      None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
    78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

    Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

      No - but one is expected from Huawei given the corresponding
      IS-IS draft has an IPR disclosure.

(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 is consensus from the WG and others outside the WG that
      this document can progress.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

      No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document.  (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

      Nits are all resolved - other than some confusion about the
      RFC 8174 reference.

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

      Not applicable.

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

      Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
 
      No. Publication for "IS-IS ELC" will be requested concurrently.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
    If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
    in the Last Call procedure.

      No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
    RFCs?  Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in
    the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are
    not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point
    to the part of the document where the relationship of this document
    to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the
    document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

      No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of
    the document.  Confirm that all protocol extensions that the
    document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
    IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have
    been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries
    include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
    registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are
    defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been
    suggested (see RFC 5226).

    The IANA considerations section is clear and early allocations have
    been made for the requested code points.
 
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags
    https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4

(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 registries are required.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

      Not applicable.

2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2019-10-23
11 Acee Lindem Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2019-10-21
11 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-11.txt
2019-10-21
11 (System) New version approved
2019-10-21
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu
2019-10-21
11 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2019-10-04
10 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-10.txt
2019-10-04
10 (System) New version approved
2019-10-04
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski
2019-10-04
10 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2019-09-12
09 Dhruv Dhody Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list.
2019-09-03
09 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
2019-09-03
09 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2019-09-03
09 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-09.txt
2019-09-03
09 (System) New version approved
2019-09-03
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Peter Psenak , Sriganesh Kini , Stephane Litkowski
2019-09-03
09 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2019-08-30
08 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2019-08-30
08 Min Ye Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2019-08-30
08 Acee Lindem Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2019-05-13
08 Peter Psenak New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-08.txt
2019-05-13
08 (System) New version approved
2019-05-13
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Stephane Litkowski
2019-05-13
08 Peter Psenak Uploaded new revision
2019-03-28
07 (System) Document has expired
2018-09-24
07 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07.txt
2018-09-24
07 (System) New version approved
2018-09-24
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Siva Sivabalan , Stephane Litkowski
2018-09-24
07 Xiaohu Xu Uploaded new revision
2018-08-01
06 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-06.txt
2018-08-01
06 (System) New version approved
2018-08-01
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Xiaohu Xu , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , Stephane Litkowski
2018-08-01
06 Xiaohu Xu Uploaded new revision
2018-07-16
05 (System) Document has expired
2018-02-28
05 Cindy Morgan Notification list changed to none
2018-02-28
05 Cindy Morgan Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF)
2018-01-03
05 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-05.txt
2018-01-03
05 (System) New version approved
2018-01-03
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Siva Sivabalan , Xiaohu Xu , Sriganesh Kini , Clarence Filsfils , ospf-chairs@ietf.org, Stephane Litkowski
2018-01-03
05 Xiaohu Xu Uploaded new revision
2017-06-03
04 (System) Document has expired
2016-11-30
04 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-04.txt
2016-11-30
04 (System) New version approved
2016-11-30
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Siva Sivabalan" , "Sriganesh Kini" , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Xiaohu Xu" , "Stephane Litkowski"
2016-11-30
04 Xiaohu Xu Uploaded new revision
2016-10-18
03 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-03.txt
2016-10-18
03 (System) New version approved
2016-10-18
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Sriganesh Kini" , "Siva Sivabalan" , "Xiaohu Xu" , "Stephane Litkowski" , "Clarence Filsfils" , ospf-chairs@ietf.org
2016-10-18
02 Xiaohu Xu Uploaded new revision
2016-05-04
02 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-02.txt
2015-11-10
01 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-01.txt
2015-04-20
00 Xiaohu Xu New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-00.txt