BGP Prefix Independent Convergence
draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-20
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-01-26
|
20 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
20 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2023-10-01
|
20 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-20.txt |
2023-10-01
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-01
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2023-10-01
|
20 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-24
|
19 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
2023-04-24
|
19 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to I-D Exists from Dead |
2023-04-01
|
19 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-19.txt |
2023-04-01
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-04-01
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2023-04-01
|
19 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-27
|
18 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-03-27
|
18 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2023-03-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Removed all action holders |
2023-03-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
2023-03-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2023-03-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | My AD term is coming to an end, and this document hasn't been revised based on the review I provided almost 8 months ago. After … My AD term is coming to an end, and this document hasn't been revised based on the review I provided almost 8 months ago. After consulting with the new responsible AD, we decided to return this draft to the WG. |
2023-03-26
|
18 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
2023-03-26
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2023-02-23
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Changed action holders to Clarence Filsfils, Ahmed Bashandy, Prodosh Mohapatra |
2022-08-02
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> |
2022-08-02
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | === AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-18 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/XwJ74D29CNhmlJyl-ZnSOCdqR8s/ |
2022-08-02
|
18 | (System) | Changed action holders to Clarence Filsfils, Alvaro Retana, Ahmed Bashandy, Prodosh Mohapatra (IESG state changed) |
2022-08-02
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2022-07-19
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-07-19
|
18 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
2022-07-19
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-04-09
|
18 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-18.txt |
2022-04-09
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-04-09
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2022-04-09
|
18 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-29
|
17 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Last Call review by INTDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2021-10-16
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? An Informational Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This informational document is proposing a forwarding plane using multi-level forwarding chains with maximal sharing of forwarding objects. In case of failure, it can reroute a large number of destinations by modifying a small number of objects, and traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. Working Group Summary: During WG adoption call, it’s been agreed that this document is useful, and there are mature implementations. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the document and followed the discussion on the RTGWG mailing list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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. There is an IPR disclosure referencing this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic The IPR disclosure was sent to the WG, and there was no concerns raised. (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 was WG consensus to publish 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. No IANA registry needed. (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. No new registries. (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. Not applicable. |
2021-10-16
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2021-10-16
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2021-10-16
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2021-10-16
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2021-10-15
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2021-10-15
|
17 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? An Informational Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This informational document is proposing a forwarding plane using multi-level forwarding chains with maximal sharing of forwarding objects. In case of failure, it can reroute a large number of destinations by modifying a small number of objects, and traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. Working Group Summary: During WG adoption call, it’s been agreed that this document is useful, and there are mature implementations. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the document and followed the discussion on the RTGWG mailing list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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. There is an IPR disclosure referencing this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic The IPR disclosure was sent to the WG, and there was no concerns raised. (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 was WG consensus to publish 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. No IANA registry needed. (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. No new registries. (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. Not applicable. |
2021-10-13
|
17 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Assignment of request for Last Call review by INTDIR to Ron Bonica was marked no-response |
2021-10-13
|
17 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Assignment of request for Last Call review by INTDIR to Ted Lemon was marked no-response |
2021-10-12
|
17 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-17.txt |
2021-10-12
|
17 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ahmed Bashandy) |
2021-10-12
|
17 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2021-09-26
|
16 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-16.txt |
2021-09-26
|
16 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ahmed Bashandy) |
2021-09-26
|
16 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-23
|
15 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? An Informational Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This informational document is proposing a forwarding plane using multi-level forwarding chains with maximal sharing of forwarding objects. In case of failure, it can reroute a large number of destinations by modifying a small number of objects, and traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. Working Group Summary: During WG adoption call, it’s been agreed that this document is useful, and there are mature implementations. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the document and followed the discussion on the RTGWG mailing list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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. There is an IPR disclosure referencing this document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic The IPR disclosure was sent to the WG, and there was no concerns raised. (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 was WG consensus to publish 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. One nits identified by indicts needs to be resolved. Email sent to the authors. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. No IANA registry needed. (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. No new registries. (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. Not applicable. |
2021-08-20
|
15 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-15.txt |
2021-08-20
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-08-20
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2021-08-20
|
15 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-15
|
14 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-14.txt |
2021-08-15
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-08-15
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2021-08-15
|
14 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2021-05-10
|
13 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2021-05-10
|
13 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2021-04-28
|
13 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2021-04-28
|
13 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2021-03-29
|
13 | Francesca Palombini | Closed request for Last Call review by ARTART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2021-02-14
|
13 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-13.txt |
2021-02-14
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-14
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2021-02-14
|
13 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-13
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-01-29
|
12 | Bruno Decraene | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Bruno Decraene. Sent review to list. |
2021-01-17
|
12 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. |
2021-01-14
|
12 | Min Ye | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Tony Przygienda was marked no-response |
2021-01-14
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2021-01-14
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2021-01-10
|
12 | Reese Enghardt | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt. Sent review to list. |
2020-12-18
|
12 | Brian Trammell | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Trammell. Sent review to list. |
2020-12-17
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. Sent review to list. |
2020-12-14
|
12 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell |
2020-12-14
|
12 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Brian Trammell |
2020-12-14
|
12 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2020-12-14
|
12 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by IOTDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2020-12-11
|
12 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tony Przygienda |
2020-12-11
|
12 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tony Przygienda |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Geoff Huston |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Theresa Enghardt |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Theresa Enghardt |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2020-12-10
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by ARTART |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by TSVART |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by IOTDIR |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by INTDIR |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by GENART |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Requested Last Call review by SECDIR |
2020-12-09
|
12 | Jeff Tantsura | Notification list changed to Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> from "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> |
2020-11-20
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic | |
2020-11-16
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic | |
2020-08-12
|
12 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-12.txt |
2020-08-12
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-08-12
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2020-08-12
|
12 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-26
|
11 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? An Informational Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This informational document is proposing a forwarding plane using multi-level forwarding chains with maximal sharing of forwarding objects. In case of failure, it can reroute a large number of destinations by modifying a small number of objects, and traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. Working Group Summary: During WG adoption call, it’s been agreed that this document is useful, and there are mature implementations. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the document and followed the discussion on the RTGWG mailing list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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? There are still authors who didn’t reply to the IPR call. (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? The document has not passed WGLC. (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.) The document has not passed WGLC. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nits are all resolved. Shepherd review comments have been addressed in version -11. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. No IANA registry needed. (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. No new registries. (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. Not applicable. |
2020-03-12
|
11 | Yingzhen Qu | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? An Informational Track RFC is being requested and is indicated in the title page header. (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: This informational document is proposing a forwarding plane using multi-level forwarding chains with maximal sharing of forwarding objects. In case of failure, it can reroute a large number of destinations by modifying a small number of objects, and traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. Working Group Summary: During WG adoption call, it’s been agreed that this document is useful, and there are mature implementations. Document Quality: This document has been a WG document for multiple years. It is stable, without changes to the technical solution and only clarifications. Personnel: Yingzhen Qu is the Document Shepherd. Martin Vigoureux is the Responsible Area Director. (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 reviewed the document and followed the discussion on the RTGWG mailing list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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? There are still authors who didn’t reply to the IPR call. (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 consensus from the WG that this document can progress. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nits are all resolved. Shepherd review comments have been addressed in version -11. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. No IANA registry needed. (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. No new registries. (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. Not applicable. |
2020-02-10
|
11 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-11.txt |
2020-02-10
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-10
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra , Ahmed Bashandy |
2020-02-10
|
11 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2019-12-20
|
10 | Yingzhen Qu | Notification list changed to "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> from "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, … Notification list changed to "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra@cisco.com>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com> from "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra@cisco.com> |
2019-12-20
|
10 | Yingzhen Qu | Document shepherd changed to Yingzhen Qu |
2019-10-02
|
10 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-10.txt |
2019-10-02
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-02
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra , Ahmed Bashandy |
2019-10-02
|
10 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-01
|
09 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-09.txt |
2019-04-01
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-01
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra , Ahmed Bashandy |
2019-04-01
|
09 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-01
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-09-28
|
08 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-08.txt |
2018-09-28
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-28
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Prodosh Mohapatra , Ahmed Bashandy |
2018-09-28
|
08 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-02
|
07 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-07.txt |
2018-04-02
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-02
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, Prodosh Mohapatra |
2018-04-02
|
07 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-06.txt |
2017-11-20
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-20
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2017-11-20
|
06 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-11
|
05 | Chris Bowers | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2017-11-11
|
05 | Chris Bowers | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2017-11-07
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | Notification list changed to "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra@cisco.com> from "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh> |
2017-11-07
|
05 | Jeff Tantsura | Document shepherd changed to Gaurav Dawra |
2017-05-25
|
05 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-05.txt |
2017-05-25
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-25
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2017-05-25
|
05 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-22
|
04 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-04.txt |
2017-05-22
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-22
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy , Prodosh Mohapatra |
2017-05-22
|
04 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-22
|
03 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-03.txt |
2016-11-22
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-22
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Clarence Filsfils" , "Ahmed Bashandy" , rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, "Pradosh Mohapatra" |
2016-11-22
|
03 | Ahmed Bashandy | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-01
|
02 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt |
2016-07-18
|
01 | Jeff Tantsura | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2016-07-18
|
01 | Jeff Tantsura | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-06-21
|
01 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-01.txt |
2016-06-10
|
00 | Jeff Tantsura | Notification list changed to "Rob Shakir" <rjs@rob.sh> |
2016-06-10
|
00 | Jeff Tantsura | Document shepherd changed to Rob Shakir |
2016-04-21
|
00 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Bruno Decraene. |
2016-04-11
|
00 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2016-04-11
|
00 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2015-12-08
|
00 | Jeff Tantsura | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2015-12-08
|
00 | Jeff Tantsura | This document now replaces draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic instead of None |
2015-12-08
|
00 | Ahmed Bashandy | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt |