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 |