Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks
draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter |
2006-04-03
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-29
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-03-29
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-03-29
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-03-17
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-16
|
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by IESG Secretary |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot comment] >7.7. MPLS Shim EXP Bit Values > > If it is desired to carry Quality of Service information, the Quality > of Service … [Ballot comment] >7.7. MPLS Shim EXP Bit Values > > If it is desired to carry Quality of Service information, the Quality > of Service information SHOULD be represented in the EXP field of the > PW MPLS label. If more than one MPLS label is imposed by the ingress > LSR, the EXP field of any labels higher in the stack SHOULD also > carry the same value. Reference missing here? |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
2006-03-16
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2006-03-16
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Very nice applicability statement and congestion control considerations - careful presentation about AF vs. EF, uses of diffserv-TE classes, where BECN/FECN can and … [Ballot comment] Very nice applicability statement and congestion control considerations - careful presentation about AF vs. EF, uses of diffserv-TE classes, where BECN/FECN can and cannot be handled, and so on. |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Allison Mankin |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Very nice applicability statement and congestion control considerations - careful presentation about AF vs. EF, uses of diffserv-TE classes, where BECN/FECN are handled … [Ballot comment] Very nice applicability statement and congestion control considerations - careful presentation about AF vs. EF, uses of diffserv-TE classes, where BECN/FECN are handled and so on. |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Michelle Cotton | REVISED IANA Comments: There are references for IANA to update in the following registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2006-03-15
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2006-03-14
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2006-03-14
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] The number of contributing authors listed is remarkable. I would really expect this many names to be handled by a simple list of … [Ballot comment] The number of contributing authors listed is remarkable. I would really expect this many names to be handled by a simple list of acknowledgments. |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] Probable technical nit from Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern: Nit, probably suitable for RFC Editor fixup: In section 7.2 it says "information … [Ballot discuss] Probable technical nit from Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern: Nit, probably suitable for RFC Editor fixup: In section 7.2 it says "information field with bit/byte stuffing, frame relay header removed, and FCS removed ." I am quite certain that the intention is to remove any bit/byte stuffing. I would suggest: "information field with the following components removed: bit/byte stuffing, frame relay header, and FCS." |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2006-03-06
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-16 by Mark Townsley |
2006-03-06
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Note field has been cleared by Mark Townsley |
2006-03-02
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-03-02
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-07.txt |
2006-01-10
|
07 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Mark Townsley |
2006-01-10
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-01-19 by Mark Townsley |
2006-01-10
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: 'Awaiting congestion control and applicability text' added by Mark Townsley |
2006-01-09
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-01-19 by Mark Townsley |
2005-12-28
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2005-12-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | PROTO Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet … PROTO Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has been fully reviewed by the PWE3 WG. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? We have no concerns. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. We have no concerns. 1.e) 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 firm consensus for the design described in this document. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Yes 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes, it is correctly split into normative and informative references. All normative references are either RFCs, or in the RFC-Editor queue. |
2005-12-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | PROTO Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet … PROTO Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has been fully reviewed by the PWE3 WG. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? We have no concerns. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. We have no concerns. 1.e) 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 firm consensus for the design described in this document. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Yes 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes, it is correctly split into normative and informative references. All normative references are either RFCs, or in the RFC-Editor queue. |
2005-12-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley |
2005-12-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley |
2005-12-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-12-15
|
07 | Mark Townsley | PROTO Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet … PROTO Stewart Bryant is the WG Chair responsible for this WG draft. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has been fully reviewed by the PWE3 WG. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? We have no concerns. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. We have no concerns. 1.e) 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 firm consensus for the design described in this document. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Yes 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes, it is correctly split into normative and informative references. All normative references are either RFCs, or in the RFC-Editor queue. |
2005-12-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2005-12-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2005-12-14
|
07 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Mark Townsley |
2005-12-14
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Last Call was requested by Mark Townsley |
2005-12-14
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-12-14
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-12-14
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-12-14
|
07 | Mark Townsley | Draft Added by Mark Townsley in state AD Evaluation |
2005-12-13
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-06.txt |
2005-04-22
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-05.txt |
2005-02-21
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-04.txt |
2005-01-31
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Axerra Networks, Ltd.'s statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-03.txt | |
2004-08-30
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-03.txt |
2004-02-03
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-02.txt |
2003-07-03
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-01.txt |
2002-10-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-00.txt |