Skip to main content

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