A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe)
draft-ietf-p2psip-share-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-03-20
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-08
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-01-24
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-12-12
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-12-12
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-12-12
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-12-07
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-12-07
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-12-07
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-12-07
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-12-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-12-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-12-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-07
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-11-13
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-11-13
|
10 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-10.txt |
2016-11-13
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-13
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Gabriel Hege" , "Matthias Waehlisch" , "Thomas Schmidt" , "Alexander Knauf" , p2psip-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-11-13
|
10 | Thomas Schmidt | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-12
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-11-08
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Rick Casarez. |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Please look at comments from Matt Miller's Gen-ART review: --- Nits/editorial comments: * idnits reports a stale reference to I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip (should be RFC … [Ballot comment] Please look at comments from Matt Miller's Gen-ART review: --- Nits/editorial comments: * idnits reports a stale reference to I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip (should be RFC 7904). * In 5.1. "Overview", the word "witch" should be "which". * In 5.3. "Overlay Configuration Document Extension", there should be a space between "P2PSIP" and "[I-D.ietf-p2psip-sip]". * In 6.2. "Revoking White Access", there should be a space between "see" and "[RFC6940]". * In 6.4. "Operations of Storing Peers", a comma is missing between "peers" and "at" in the phrase "Storing peers at which Shared Resource and ACL are physically stored ...". Non-issue comments: * idnits is reporting weird spacing and "possible code", but that appears to be due to the Relax NG grammar. In my opinion the nit can be safely ignored. |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - General: this feels more like an experimental spec. If the authors didn't object I think that'd be more appropriate. - General: can … [Ballot comment] - General: this feels more like an experimental spec. If the authors didn't object I think that'd be more appropriate. - General: can these ACLs be resources to which access is controlled via another of these ACLs? If so, then it seems like there may be some nasty corner-cases where things get lost (so nobody can change 'em in future) and I don't see how one might recover from that. (Apologies if I'm just mixed up here, I read this fairly quickly and didn't reload RELOAD into my little head first;-) - 3.1: 24 bits of collision resistance isn't many. I'm not clear why that's ok - 3.1, last para: SHA-1 isn't a good example really, SHA-256 would be better today. - 5.3: Is the mapping to USER and DOMAIN from certificates well-defined? It may be in RELOAD, I forget, sorry;-) It doesn't seem to be well-defined here anyway. |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Below is Rick Casarez's OPS DIR review: Section 6.5: "Since stored values could have been modified or invalidated prior to their expiration, an … [Ballot comment] Below is Rick Casarez's OPS DIR review: Section 6.5: "Since stored values could have been modified or invalidated prior to their expiration, an accessing peer SHOULD use a Stat request to check for updates prior to using the data cache" When considering security, and how this works, I would recommend changing this to MUST or advising that the lifetime be set very low. A stale ACL could allow access were none should occur. |
2016-11-03
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-11-02
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-11-02
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-11-02
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-11-02
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-11-02
|
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-11-01
|
09 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-11-01
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I have a one set of substantive comments/questions, and some editorial comments: Substantive: - I'm confused about the validation procedure. In step one, … [Ballot comment] I have a one set of substantive comments/questions, and some editorial comments: Substantive: - I'm confused about the validation procedure. In step one, is this the user name of the user attempting to write the resource? In step 5, I do not understand how this terminates. Which ACL item is the "previously selected" one. If that refers to the one selected in the last iteration of steps 3 and 4, how do you know there are not more ACL items to iterate through? Editorial: -1, first paragraph, first sentence: s/that/, which -- recurring singular plural mismatch "resources with a variable name". -1, 2nd paragraphs: "It transfers the authorization..." What is the antecedent for "it"? -3. First paragraph after numbered list, "user called Authorized Peer": missing article. -3.1, 3rd paragraph: Is the SHALL appropriate? Is an authorized user actually required to access the array in the first place? - 6.5, first paragraph: Does the MAY grant permission, or is it a statement of fact? -6.6, paragraphs 3 and 4: Are the MUSTs appropriate? Are there not other (perhaps application specific) reasons one might choose not to write the value? -- 2nd paragraph from end: The MUST seems more like a statement of fact. (E.g. "The resulting ... integer is used...") - 4.1, last paragraph: s/implementations/implementors - 4.2, definition of res_name_ext: The sentence starting with "This name serves..." is hard to parse. -5.1, 4th paragraph (paragraph after example) : s/witch/which |
2016-11-01
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-11-01
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing the SecDir review findings. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06890.html |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Quick questions on sec 6.3. (Validating Write Access through an ACL): Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the ACL … [Ballot comment] Quick questions on sec 6.3. (Validating Write Access through an ACL): Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the ACL every time I give access to a resource? Wouldn't I rather validate the ACL when it's modified and then simply assume that it is sufficient that I have an entry in the ACL to provide access? |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Quick questions on sec 6.3. (Validating Write Access through an ACL): - Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the … [Ballot comment] Quick questions on sec 6.3. (Validating Write Access through an ACL): - Do I really need to validate the authorization chain in the ACL everytime I give access to a ressource? Whouldn't I rather validate the ACL when it's modified and then simply assume that it is sufficient that I have an entry in the ACL to provide access? |
2016-10-31
|
09 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-25
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-10-21
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-21
|
09 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. Upon approval of this document, we understand that there are three registry actions to complete. First, in the RELOAD Access Control Policies subregistry of the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/ a single new value is to be registered as follows: Access Policy: USER-CHAIN-ACL Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the RELOAD Data Kind-ID subregistry also in the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/ a single new Kind is to be registered as follows: Kind-ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Kind: ACCESS-CONTROL-LIST Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Question --> in which of the two available ranges in the Data Kind-ID registry should this new value be placed? Third, in the namespace (ns) subregistry of the IETF XML Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ a single new registration will be made as follows: ID: p2p:config-base:share URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:p2p:config-base:share Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this is an Expert Review (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required review via a separate request. Approval by the expert is required for registration. We understand 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-10-20
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-11-03 |
2016-10-14
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-10-14
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-10-14
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2016-10-14
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-10-12
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-p2psip-share@ietf.org, marc@petit-huguenin.org, alissa@cooperw.in, p2psip@ietf.org, p2psip-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-p2psip-share@ietf.org, marc@petit-huguenin.org, alissa@cooperw.in, p2psip@ietf.org, p2psip-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol WG (p2psip) to consider the following document: - 'A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe)' 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 2016-10-25. 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 defines a RELOAD Usage for managing shared write access to RELOAD Resources. Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) form a basic primitive for enabling various coordination and notification schemes among distributed peers. Access in ShaRe is controlled by a hierarchical trust delegation scheme maintained within an access list. A new USER-CHAIN-ACL access policy allows authorized peers to write a Shared Resource without owning its corresponding certificate. This specification also adds mechanisms to store Resources with a variable name which is useful whenever peer-independent rendezvous processes are required. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-share/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-share/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party |
2016-10-11
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-10-10
|
09 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09.txt |
2016-10-10
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-10
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Gabriel Hege" , "Matthias Waehlisch" , "Thomas Schmidt" , "Alexander Knauf" , p2psip-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-10-10
|
08 | Thomas Schmidt | Uploaded new revision |
2016-04-07
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. |
2016-03-31
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-03-31
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-03-23
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-03-20
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-03-20
|
08 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-08.txt |
2016-01-27
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2016-01-14
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | (A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … (A Usage for Shared Resources in RELOAD (ShaRe) draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? This document defines extensions to RFC6940, and so has the same requested status. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document defines extensions for the RELOAD protocol to manage shared write access to resources. This specification also adds mechanisms to store Resources with a variable name which is useful whenever peer-independent rendezvous processes are required. Working Group Summary There was no controversy or difficulty to reach Working Group consensus. Document Quality There has been at least two implementations of the protocol, one by the authors, another by the Document Shepherd. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Marc Petit-Huguenin Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alissa Cooper (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 done a multiple reviews over the years, together with an implementation of this document. More recently a final review found some issues that were fixed by the authors in the last revision of the document. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? In addition to private reviews sent directly to the authors, at least two other member of the WG have reviewed the document in addition to the Document Shepherd. The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews. (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 additional review of portions of the document was needed. (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. The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues regarding the document. (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 WG consensus behind 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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The idnits tool v2.13.02 returns 2 comments, one about an incorrect detection of code in the text, and another about a down reference about an IEEE specification. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document meets the review criteria. (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. 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 document registers a new Access Control Policy and a new Data Kind-ID, both in registries defined in RFC 6940. The document also registers a new URI in the config XML namespace registry defined in RFC 3688. (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. The Document Shepherd has manually verified the data structures defined using the description language defined in RFC 6940. The regular expression used as example in section 5.1 has also been manually verified. Finally the Relax NG Grammar has been verified by a verification tool. |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-01-03
|
07 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Changed document writeup |
2015-12-14
|
07 | Marc Petit-Huguenin | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-09
|
07 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-07.txt |
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Marc Petit-Huguenin" to (None) |
2015-07-15
|
06 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Notification list changed to "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <marc@petit-huguenin.org> |
2015-07-15
|
06 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Document shepherd changed to Marc Petit-Huguenin |
2015-07-15
|
06 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-06-17
|
06 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-06.txt |
2015-03-02
|
05 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-05.txt |
2014-08-29
|
04 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-04.txt |
2014-08-10
|
03 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-03-03
|
03 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-03.txt |
2013-08-27
|
02 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-02.txt |
2013-02-24
|
01 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-01.txt |
2012-10-09
|
00 | Thomas Schmidt | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-share-00.txt |