Skip to main content

Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-22

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-06-16
22 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-06-02
22 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-05-22
22 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2014-05-16
22 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2014-03-25
22 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-03-24
22 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2014-03-23
22 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-03-12
22 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-03-11
22 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-03-11
22 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-03-11
22 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-03-11
22 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-03-11
22 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2014-03-11
22 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-03-11
22 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2014-03-10
22 Adrian Farrel Ballot approval text was generated
2014-03-10
22 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-03-10
22 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup was changed
2014-03-10
22 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2014-03-10
22 Adrian Farrel Just a couple of comments to mop up
2014-03-10
22 Adrian Farrel IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-03-10
22 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-22.txt
2014-03-10
21 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
WFM.

was

Support Adrian's discuss.

Also awaiting proposed text to address the security area review concerns.
2014-03-10
21 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] Position for Joel Jaeggli has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-03-09
21 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Many thanks for addressing my Discuss and mopping up the many Comments.

I support the publication of this document and have just three …
[Ballot comment]
Many thanks for addressing my Discuss and mopping up the many Comments.

I support the publication of this document and have just three small Comments remaining.

---

After updates to Figure 1, the text continues to refer to "PSN1" and "PSN2". I think you can...

OLD
  A PSN tunnel extends
  from T-PE1 to S-PE1 Switching PE1 (S-PE1) across PSN1, and a second PSN
  tunnel extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 across PSN2.
NEW
  A PSN tunnel extends
  from T-PE1 to S-PE1 Switching PE1 (S-PE1), and a second PSN tunnel
  extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2.
END

and later

OLD
  PSN tunnels (e.g., PSN1 and PSN2)
NEW
  PSN tunnels
END

----

> >You will fall foul of the RFC Editor's requirement that the section
> >titled "Authors' Addresses" contains only those people named on the
> >front page. The others will need to be moved to "Contributors".

You are still going to have to do something more here. Either now or during the
RFC Editor process.
2014-03-09
21 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2014-03-05
21 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Adrian Farrel
2014-03-03
21 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-03-03
21 Matthew Bocci IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2014-03-03
21 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-21.txt
2014-01-17
20 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2014-01-09
20 Christer Holmberg Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2014-01-09
20 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga.
2014-01-09
20 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-01-09
20 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
Support Joel's discuss.
2014-01-09
20 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2014-01-09
20 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-01-09
20 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-01-08
20 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2014-01-08
20 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2014-01-08
20 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]


- As noted in Joel's discuss, the authors promised some
text to address the secdir review but I've not seen that
so far …
[Ballot comment]


- As noted in Joel's discuss, the authors promised some
text to address the secdir review but I've not seen that
so far (only been a couple of days to be fair). And as
it happens that review didn't say why the reviewer had
been convinced that its ok, so I'll look forward to
seeing Joel's discuss being resolved.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04501.html
2014-01-08
20 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-01-08
20 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot discuss]
Support Adrian's discuss.

Also awaiting proposed text to address the security area review concerns.
2014-01-08
20 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2014-01-08
20 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2014-01-07
20 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-01-07
20 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-01-06
20 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-01-02
20 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-01-02
20 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-01-01
20 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
In my review of this document I have tried to separate major and
minor issues into Discuss and Comment respectively. Inevitably,
with so …
[Ballot discuss]
In my review of this document I have tried to separate major and
minor issues into Discuss and Comment respectively. Inevitably,
with so many issues, some sit on the boundary and I may have put
them in the Discuss category by a habit of grousiness: please just
holler if that is the case.

---

I am surprised by the description at the start of Section 1.4

  T-PE1 and T-PE2 provide an emulated service to Customer Edge (CE) CE1
  and CE2. These Provider Edge (PE) nodes reside in different PSNs.  A
  PSN tunnel extends from T-PE1 to S-PE1 across PSN1, and a second PSN
  tunnel extends from S-PE1 to T-PE2 across PSN2. PWs are used to
  connect the attachment circuits (ACs) attached to T-PE1 to the
  corresponding AC attached to T-PE2.

While I understand that the T-PEs *can* reside in different PSNs, I did
not believe that they *must* be in different PSNs. In fact, I thought a
things had come on a bit since RFC 5659 and a common MS-PW deployment
placed an S-PE inside the PSN as a way of mitigating the n-squared LDP
sessions (and tunnels) needed to provide a full mesh of PWs.

---

The paragraph at the end of Section 1.4 is ambiguous:

  Note that although Figure 1 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
  transit more than one S-PE along its path. For instance, in the
  multi-provider case, there can be an S-PE at the border of one
  provider domain and another S-PE at the border of the other provider
  domain.

The first sentence is fine. but the example is strange because it says
(or seems to say) that in the case of an inter-domain MS-PW there are
two S-PEs that are immediately adjacent (i.e., the ASBRs with the inter-
AS link connecting them). This is sufficiently a special case that it
probably demands documentation. It is also an odd case, because it is
not clear whether the inter-AS piece of the MS-PW would be signaled or
manually configured (or exist as ACs).

You may, therefore, find it better to steer away from inter-provider
MS-PWs (perhaps even noting them for separate study) and limit your
example to an intra-provider case with multiple S-PEs (which should be
an obvious use case).

---

4.2.2 having used "MUST" to say that there has to be a process for
determining which is the ST-PE and which the TT-PE, then only uses
"SHOULD" in describing the process to be used.

However, it seems to me that the "MUST" can only be satisfied if the
two T-PEs use mechanisms that are at least the same in their result,
and that that is almost certainly only guaranteed by actually defining
the algorithm to use.

Furthermore, the algorithm given seems to be a little bit broken!

  - If the SAII Global ID > TAII Global ID, then the T-PE is active
    - else if the SAII Prefix > TAII Prefix, then the T-PE is active
      - else if the SAII AC-ID > TAII AC-ID, then the T-PE is active
        - else the T-PE is passive.

Consider T-PE1's view of {SAII == 123.45.67, TAII == 100.89.15}
123 > 100 therefore T-PE1 is active.

Now consider T-PE2's view {SAII == 100.89.15, TAII == 123.45.67}
100 < 123
89 > 45 therefore T-PE2 is active.

So, I think you need...

  - If the SAII Global ID > TAII Global ID, then the T-PE is active
    - else if the SAII Global ID < TAII Global ID then the T-PE is passive
      - else if the SAII Prefix > TAII Prefix, then the T-PE is active
        - else if the SAII Prefix < TAII Prefix, then the T-PE is passive
          - else if the SAII AC-ID > TAII AC-ID, then the T-PE is active
            - else if the SAII AC-ID < TAII AC-ID, then the T-PE is passive
              - else there is a configuration error

---

4.2.3 has

    - If it is already installed, and the received mapping was received
      from the same LDP peer to which the forward LDP label mapping was
      sent, then this label mapping represents signaling in the reverse
      direction for this MS-PW segment.
    - If it is already installed, and the received mapping was received
      from a different LDP peer to which the forward LDP label mapping
      was sent, then the received label mapping MUST be released with
      the status code of "PW_LOOP_DETECTED".

What am I missing? If the mapping comes back along the path it is not a
loop (or micro loop) but a reverse path signal. If the mapping comes
along a different path it is not a reverse path taking a different path
through the network (which you may define as an error even if it could
be a transient error) but a loop.

Why is that distinction obvious?

---

Section 5.1 has...

  If
  the PSN is unable to re-establish the PSN tunnel, then the S-PE
  SHOULD follow the procedures defined in Section 8 of [RFC6073].

Section 8 of RFC 6073 is titled "MPLS-PW to L2TPv3-PW Control Plane
Switching" so something is broken.

---

Section 5.3 talks of "L2 PW reachability" where previously the document
has discussed "AII reachability" (or "TAII reachability"). This change
in terminology causes the reader to wonder whether you are describing a
different concept. I think you are, however, talking about the same
thing. You should clarify this.

At the same time, I think that having introduced "MAY tear down" and
"this procedure is OPTIONAL" you would do well to advise the implementer
of the consequences. Since you don't offer a "make-before-break"
equivalent, such a change is going to be highly disruptive to the PW
service.

Wouldn't it be better to use a non-disruptive report to the ST-PE to let
it signal a new MS-PW from end to end, switch the traffic over, and then
tear down the old one?
2014-01-01
20 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I accept the Shepherd's word that the WG appears to be content with to
go ahead in the face of IPR owned by …
[Ballot comment]
I accept the Shepherd's word that the WG appears to be content with to
go ahead in the face of IPR owned by a party that has not disclosed
license terms and which cannot be held back by the usual tit-for-tat
license terms since the body concerned does not manufacture or deploy
networking equipment.  I am surprised by the WG's view of this and
puzzled that no effort was spent to avoid this particular patent, but
perhaps the participants felt it was unenforceable or irrelevant.

---

The update of 6073 isn't exactly capricious, but it is pretty odd to
effectively place an Errata Report fix in this vaguely associated
document. I don't suppose this matters, but it is odd.

(By the way, I am assuming this is a bug fix, not a "change". That is,
there can be no backward compatibility issues since it was not possible
to implement this sub-TLV with length 12 as previously documented. You
might usefully make this point clear.)

---

There are some acronyms that creep in unannounced...
PW
SS-PW
PWID
FEC

---

Section 3.1

Isn't it time to stop calling the "prefix" field by that name. It is
possibly OK to continue having a 32-bit field here, but we must
acknowledge that it is likely to have nothing to do with IPv4 in
future (and some current) networks where IPv4 loopback addresses will
not exist. Thus, RFC 5003 is showing its age!

---

Section 3.1

Please use "Global ID" consistently (not "global ID")

---

Please be consistent with the capitalisation of LDP message names. For
example, Section 3.2

  with an S-PE address, then on receiving a Dynamic MS-PW label mapping
  message the S-PE MUST return a Label Release with the

---

Top of page 8

s/TAI/TAII/

---

I trust that Section 4.1.3 was discussed with the IDR working group and
passed through that fiery pit unscathed. Shouldn't you make a big thing
of noting that the instance of BGP you are using for PW routing is not
the global E-BGP instance (or perhaps it is?). I think, for example, you
require that PW routing information is not forwarded by PEs that are not
capable of MS-PW support because otherwise they will attract LDP
signaling that they cannot handle.

---

Maybe obvious, but shouldn't 4.2.1 make it clear that a single PW must
not be load balanced across multiple equal-cost next hops.

(BTW, since there is no cost metric, I don't see how the term "equal-
cost" applies. Maybe "alternate available paths"?)

---

Section 4.2.3 uses a mix of upper and lower case 2119 words. Is this
intentional?

---

The numbered steps in 4.2.3 are a little over-rich with passive voice.
I think it is possible to determine who takes which action, but it
would not hurt to make it clearer.

There is also an implicit "and exit" in some of the sub-cases of the
numbered points. Again, i think it is possible to work out what is
needed, but it would not hurt to be more clear.

---

Section 5.2 has

  When an unsolicited label release message with such a failure status
  code is received at T-PE then the T-PE MUST re-attempt to establish
  the PW immediately.

Why?

Surely this is a service-level feature and not protocol feature. Indeed,
the set-up timing is likely to be significantly disruptive to a
pseudowire such that this re-establishment will necessarily impinge on
the service level of the PW.

It seems to me that unless you want to make a significant digression
into a discussion of PW protection mechanisms, this point about
restoration is poorly stated.

Or, reading further in that same paragraph, perhaps you are trying to
distinguish failures during setup from failures of established PWs. If
that is the point, you need to make it way clearer.

---

In 5.2 you have a lower case "recommended". Is that intentional?

---

Point -ii of 5.2 could be entirely folded into point -i by saying

            If the label release is received from an S-PE or T-PE in the
            forward or reverse signaling direction...

---

Section 6 has...

  The OAM procedures defined in [RFC6073] may be used also for MS-PWs.

But 6073 is about MS-PWs. Perhaps you mean...

  The OAM procedures defined in [RFC6073] may also be used for
  dynamically placed MS-PWs.

---

Section 6 talks of SAI and TAI. Do you mean SAII and TAII?

---

Section 6 has

  The above field MUST be included together with type 0x02 in the TLV
  once per individual PW Switching Point following the same rules and
  procedures as described in [RFC6073].

There is (to my mind) some confusion about what is a TLV, what is a
field, what a "type" is, and where all this is included. Clarity would
be valuable.

---

I'm surprised you have nothing to say in Section 7 about using LDP
across administrative domain boundaries (which is in scope here but not,
I think) in 4447 or 6073.

---

You will fall foul of the RFC Editor's requirement that the section
titled "Authors' Addresses" contains only those people named on the
front page. The others will need to be moved to "Contributors".
2014-01-01
20 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2013-12-30
20 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2013-12-24
20 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-09
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant Ballot has been issued
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant Created "Approve" ballot
2013-12-24
20 Stewart Bryant Ballot writeup was changed
2013-12-02
20 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-12-02
20 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-20.txt
2013-11-27
19 Stewart Bryant To pick up IETF LC comments
2013-11-27
19 Stewart Bryant State changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2013-11-27
19 (System) State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2013-11-27)
2013-11-24
19 Christer Holmberg Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2013-11-22
19 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA has a question about one of the actions described in the IANA
Considerations section of this document.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA needs to complete.

First, in the Pseudowire Switching Point PE sub-TLV Type subregistry of the Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3) located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/

The entry 0x06 "L2 PW address of the PW Switching Point" will be corrected to indicate a Length of 14.

QUESTION: Should the reference for this entry be updated to [RFC6073]and
[ RFC-to-be ]?

Second, in the TLV Type Name Space subregistry of the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

the value (0x096E) that has been assigned to this document by early allocation (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21), will be made permanent as follows:

Value: 0x096E
Description: Bandwidth TLV
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the Status Code Name Space subregistry of the Label Diostribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/

three new status codes will be changed from their assignment in early allocation to permanent assignment as follows:

Range/Value: 0x00000037
E: 0
Description: Bandwidth resources unavailable
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Range/Value: 0x00000038
E: 0
Description: Resources Unavailable
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Range/Value: 0x00000039
E: 0
Description: AII Unreachable
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the Subsequence Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/

the value that has been assigned to this document by early allocation (TEMPORARY - Expires 2008-11-21) will be made a permanent registration as follows:

Value: 6
Description: Network Layer Reachability Information used for Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowire
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones 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.
2013-11-11
19 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Henry Yu
2013-11-11
19 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Henry Yu
2013-10-31
19 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2013-10-31
19 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2013-10-31
19 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Withdrawn'
2013-10-31
19 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2013-10-31
19 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even
2013-10-31
19 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2013-10-31
19 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2013-10-30
19 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2013-10-30
19 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires'
  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 2013-11-27. 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


  There is a requirement for service providers to be able to extend the
  reach of pseudowires (PW) across multiple Packet Switched Network
  domains. A Multi-Segment PW is defined as a set of two or more
  contiguous PW segments that behave and function as a single point-
  to-point PW. This document describes extensions to the PW control
  protocol to dynamically place the segments of the multi-segment
  pseudowire among a set of Provider Edge (PE) routers. This document
  also updates RFC6073 as follows: it updates the length value of the
  PW Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14.






The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw/ballot/


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

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2176/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1810/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1885/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/998/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1879/



2013-10-30
19 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2013-10-30
19 Stewart Bryant Last call was requested
2013-10-30
19 Stewart Bryant Ballot approval text was generated
2013-10-30
19 Stewart Bryant Ballot writeup was generated
2013-10-30
19 Stewart Bryant State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2013-10-30
19 Stewart Bryant Last call announcement was changed
2013-10-30
19 Stewart Bryant Last call announcement was generated
2013-10-09
19 Amy Vezza Notification list changed to : pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org, loa@pi.nu
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci State Change Notice email list changed to pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw@tools.ietf.org
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci Responsible AD changed to Stewart Bryant
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci IESG state set to Publication Requested
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci Nits fixed and shepherd's review comments addressed
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2013-10-09
19 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-10-09
19 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-10-09
19 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19.txt
2013-10-07
18 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-10-07
18 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-18.txt
2013-08-28
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-22
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Florin Balus' Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-17 belonging to Rockstar
2013-08-21
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-20
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-20
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-11
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-10
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-08-10
17 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2013-07-31
17 Andy Malis Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-07-01
17 Andy Malis Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson
2013-06-19
17 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-17.txt
2012-12-11
16 Matthew Bocci New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-16.txt
2012-12-03
15 Andy Malis IETF state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2012-12-03
15 Andy Malis Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2012-09-27
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Florin Balus' Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 belonging to Nortel Networks Limited
2012-09-11
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15
2012-08-29
15 Andy Malis IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2012-08-29
15 Andy Malis WG last call ended on Oct. 6, awaiting new revision based on last call comments.
2012-08-29
15 Andy Malis Started WG last call
2012-08-29
15 Andy Malis Changed shepherd to Giles Heron
2012-07-05
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15
2012-06-20
15 Luca Martini New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt
2012-01-08
14 (System) Document has expired
2011-07-07
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-14.txt
2010-10-14
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-13.txt
2010-07-12
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-12.txt
2010-07-12
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-11.txt
2009-10-24
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-10.txt
2009-03-09
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-09.txt
2008-08-22
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-08.txt
2008-07-25
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-08.txt
2007-11-19
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-06.txt
2007-07-05
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-05.txt
2007-07-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-04.txt
2007-06-21
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-03.txt
2006-10-25
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-02.txt
2006-06-23
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-01.txt
2006-01-03
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-00.txt