OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-11-24
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-11-14
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-10-01
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-08-29
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2019-08-27
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-08-27
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-08-27
|
07 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-08-27
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my Discuss item. |
2019-08-27
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-08-21
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty. Sent review to list. |
2019-08-16
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-08-16
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-08-16
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-07.txt |
2019-08-16
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-16
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , Michael Barnes , Alvaro Retana , lsr-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-08-16
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-08-08
|
06 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 4 Do the two steps listed have to happen in a particular order in order to avoid breakage? |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] An easy item to address. Per Section 5, “Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to … [Ballot discuss] An easy item to address. Per Section 5, “Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to suboptimal routing or even traffic loops”, the impact could also include providing access to an attacker. Perhaps: OLD: Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to suboptimal routing or even traffic loops. NEW: Specifically, TE traffic may be delivered to the wrong tail-end router, which could lead to suboptimal routing; traffic loops; or expose the traffic to attacker inspection or modification. |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] "NoObj" in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem and / or this is … [Ballot comment] "NoObj" in the "I read the protocol action, and I trust the sponsoring AD so have no problem and / or this is outside my area of expertise or have no cycles" sense of the term. I ran out of cycles, and so am relying on the OpsDir review; thanks Tim. |
2019-08-07
|
06 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-08-05
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-08-05
|
06 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-08-05
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I am a co-author. |
2019-08-05
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-08-05
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) … [Ballot comment] Alvara, Anton, Michael, Thank you for the work done for this document. Just curious about section 3: OSPFv2 routers send their IPv6 address(es) and OSPFv3 routers send their IPv4 address(es). But, what happens when OSPFv3 routers are multi-topology ? Should they also send their IPv6 address(es)? Of course, in this case, the issue fixed by your memo does not exist ;-) Probably worth mentioning anyway that OSPFv3 multi-topology does not need this feature. Regards, -éric |
2019-08-05
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-07-30
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Sec 1: "This document updates [RFC5786] so that a router can also announce one or more local X-AF addresses using … [Ballot comment] Sec 1: "This document updates [RFC5786] so that a router can also announce one or more local X-AF addresses using the corresponding Local Address sub-TLV. Routers using the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] can include non-TE enabled interface addresses in their OSPF TE advertisements, and also use the same sub-TLVs to carry X-AF information, facilitating the mapping described above." I wonder if this text should use normative language (s/can/MAY/) as this is the part that actually updates RFC5786, however, I didn't check the exact wording in RFC5786... |
2019-07-30
|
06 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-07-22
|
06 | Tim Chown | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tim Chown. Sent review to list. |
2019-07-15
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2019-07-15
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2019-07-12
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-07-12
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-08 |
2019-07-12
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot has been issued |
2019-07-12
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-07-12
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-07-12
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-07-11
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-07-11
|
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-07-11
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-07-09
|
06 | Ben Niven-Jenkins | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. Sent review to list. |
2019-06-30
|
06 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. |
2019-06-28
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2019-06-28
|
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2019-06-28
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2019-06-28
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2019-06-28
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2019-06-28
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , lsr@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-11): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , lsr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te@ietf.org, acee@cisco.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels' 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 2019-07-11. 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 When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network, the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Paths (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination IPv4 and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order to achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must be computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated in another OSPF instance. This issue is solved by advertising cross- address family (X-AF) OSPF TE information. This document describes an update to RFC5786 that allows for the easy identification of a router's local X-AF IP addresses. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Last call was requested |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-06-27
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-06-26
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-06-26
|
06 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-06.txt |
2019-06-26
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-26
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Alvaro Retana , Michael Barnes |
2019-06-26
|
06 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-20
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-06-18
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-03-22
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Shepherding AD changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2019-03-21
|
05 | 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 OSPF Traffic Engineering to include allow tunnel endpoints for both IPv4 and IPv6 to be advertised in the OSPF traffic engineering LSAs for either OSPFv2 or OSPFv3. In cases where the topologies are congruent, this allows TE information to be only advertised in one of the two. Non-normative text also describes how this information is used across address families in the TE tunnel computation. Working Group Summary: There has been some confusion on how this is used and the draft has gone through iterations to separate the normative advertisement from the TE tunnel computation itself. This has now been clarified and there are no objections to the draft. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for a multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications, as well as, separation of the advertisement from the TE tunnel computation. Personnel: Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. However, he is also a co-author and may need to recuse himself. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. It updates RFC 5786. This will be added to the Abstract. (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 document has no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
2019-03-21
|
05 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2019-03-21
|
05 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2019-03-21
|
05 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-03-21
|
05 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-03-21
|
05 | 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 OSPF Traffic Engineering to include allow tunnel endpoints for both IPv4 and IPv6 to be advertised in the OSPF traffic engineering LSAs for either OSPFv2 or OSPFv3. In cases where the topologies are congruent, this allows TE information to be only advertised in one of the two. Non-normative text also describes how this information is used across address families in the TE tunnel computation. Working Group Summary: There has been some confusion on how this is used and the draft has gone through iterations to separate the normative advertisement from the TE tunnel computation itself. This has now been clarified and there are no objections to the draft. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for a multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications, as well as, separation of the advertisement from the TE tunnel computation. Personnel: Acee Lindem is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. However, he is also a co-author and may need to recuse himself. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. It updates RFC 5786. This will be added to the Abstract. (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 document has no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
2018-12-10
|
05 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-05.txt |
2018-12-10
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , Michael Barnes , Alvaro Retana |
2018-12-10
|
05 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-22
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-04.txt |
2018-10-22
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-22
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , Michael Barnes , Alvaro Retana |
2018-10-22
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-12
|
03 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> |
2018-10-12
|
03 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem |
2018-10-12
|
03 | Acee Lindem | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-10-12
|
03 | Acee Lindem | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-10-03
|
03 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-03.txt |
2018-10-03
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-03
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , Michael Barnes , Alvaro Retana |
2018-10-03
|
03 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-03
|
02 | Ben Niven-Jenkins | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. Sent review to list. |
2018-04-26
|
02 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2018-04-26
|
02 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2018-04-20
|
02 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Thomas Morin |
2018-04-20
|
02 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Thomas Morin |
2018-04-19
|
02 | Acee Lindem | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2018-04-19
|
02 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-02.txt |
2018-04-19
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-19
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , Alvaro Retana , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Barnes |
2018-04-19
|
02 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-19
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-02-28
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Notification list changed to none |
2018-02-28
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Changed group to Link State Routing (LSR) from Open Shortest Path First IGP (OSPF) |
2017-10-16
|
01 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-01.txt |
2017-10-16
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-16
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anton Smirnov , Alvaro Retana , Michael Barnes |
2017-10-16
|
01 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-30
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-01-26
|
00 | Acee Lindem | This document now replaces draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te instead of None |
2017-01-26
|
00 | Anton Smirnov | New version available: draft-ietf-ospf-xaf-te-00.txt |
2017-01-26
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-01-26
|
00 | Anton Smirnov | Set submitter to "Anton Smirnov ", replaces to draft-smirnov-ospf-xaf-te and sent approval email to group chairs: ospf-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-01-26
|
00 | Anton Smirnov | Uploaded new revision |