Skip to main content

Architecture and Requirements for Transport Services
draft-ietf-taps-arch-19

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-11-11
19 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors for this *neat* document and addressing by previous DISCUSS about the lack of "requirements" in the title for a …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to the authors for this *neat* document and addressing by previous DISCUSS about the lack of "requirements" in the title for a proposed standard.

My previous ballot is at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/P1riKVuZVMNgsFFZIBC6vnS1xz4/
2023-11-11
19 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2023-11-09
19 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2023-11-09
19 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-11-09
19 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2023-11-09
19 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-19.txt
2023-11-09
19 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-11-09
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2023-11-09
19 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2023-09-07
18 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Tommy Pauly, Brian Trammell, Anna Brunstrom, Gorry Fairhurst, Colin Perkins (IESG state changed)
2023-09-07
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2023-09-07
18 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-09-07
18 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
I'm likely to abstain on this document, because I agree with Éric that
Proposed Standard is not appropriate. This document (and its companion) …
[Ballot comment]
I'm likely to abstain on this document, because I agree with Éric that
Proposed Standard is not appropriate. This document (and its companion)
outline as extremely intricate design, and I am not aware of any
attempts to implement even a sizable subset of it. Given the various
interactions between the API components and the attributes and
behaviors of existing transport protocols (and their implementation),
I strongly believe that in-depth experimentation with actual
implementations is needed before we can have the confidence in the
design we'd like to see for publication on the Standards Track.
2023-09-07
18 Lars Eggert Ballot comment text updated for Lars Eggert
2023-09-07
18 Murray Kucherawy
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Robert Sparks for his ARTART review.

I think Paul summed it up nicely, so I'm going to plagiarize: "I support Éric …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Robert Sparks for his ARTART review.

I think Paul summed it up nicely, so I'm going to plagiarize: "I support Éric Vyncke's DISCUSS on that this document seems to be rather Informational than Standards Track. I also agree it is a bit strange to see normative BCP14 terms."

In Section 1.4, the term "Clone" is defined but not used anywhere.
2023-09-07
18 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-09-06
18 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. It seems like a good successor to "named sockets"
which we sadly don't even have for Linux/POSIX :) I …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. It seems like a good successor to "named sockets"
which we sadly don't even have for Linux/POSIX :) I look forward to being
able to open a secure connection based on just a DNS name, and letting
the TAPS system figure out wether to use TLS, QUIC, IPsec, DANE, WebPKI, etc.

I support Éric Vyncke's DISCUSS on that this document seems to be rather
Informational than Standards Track. I also agree it is a bit strange to
see normative BCP14 terms.



        Security Parameters are primarily associated with a Preconnection object,

Wouldn't these apply equally to the Listener objects? It is after all what both need
to agree on.


        RFC-EDITOR: Please remove this section before publication.

I would leave in the empty IANA Section - it is preferred over omitting it.


        As described above in Section 3.3, if a Transport Services
        implementation races between two different Protocol Stacks, both
        need to use the same security protocols and options. However,
        a Transport Services implementation can race different security
        protocols, e.g., if the application explicitly specifies that
        it considers them equivalent.

I am not sure this is a very clear distinction. Is IPsec with PolyChacha
different from WireGuard with PolyChacha? How about TLS 1.2 with AES-GCM
and TLS 1.3 with PolyChacha?  How about TLS 1.2 with AES-CBC and TLS
1.2 with AES-GCM ? Or TLS 1.3 vs QUIC? And TLS 1.2 vs
QUIC? Or TLS vs DTLS?

Some of these might not have fully known properties beforehand? Eg
what about TLS 1.2 where the server insists on PSK and rejects PFS?
Or IKEv2/IPsec with ECDSA versus IKEv2/IPsec with RSA?

It's a very gradient flow between Protocol Stacks. I am not sure the
defined distinction between Transport Services and Protocol Stacks is
that clear in practise.

How does DNS fit into this? Eg is it assumed that the application that can
request a minimum encryption can also request DNS resolving properties?
Eg insist on DoH/DoT, or insist on not using ADD, or insist on not using
the famous Quad DNS servers? Or insisting on DNSSEC validated answers only?

How does Remote Access VPN fit into this? Not at all? Or could an
application request "only through VPN connection X" ? Or is this
completely out of scope?  Either way, it could be clarified.

Was MPTCP left out on purpose in all the examples?
2023-09-06
18 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-09-06
18 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18
CC @jgscudder

Thanks for this well-written, useful, and readable document. I have just a few …
[Ballot comment]
# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18
CC @jgscudder

Thanks for this well-written, useful, and readable document. I have just a few comments, below.

Also, I share Éric and Roman's uncertainty as to whether the status of this document should be Informational instead of Standards Track.

## COMMENTS

### Introduction, "transport networking"

In your first sentence, you mention "transport networking". Is this a well-known term of art? It's not familiar to me. If this specific phrasing isn't required, I suggest re-wording, to avoid overlap with the significant existing use of "transport network" in our document set (e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search?csrfmiddlewaretoken=dckTkmSFjJ0QJaYJbABIW3isgeAcoV3KBMgOtF3L9ZoxIz92cOGOD1N23YCpUnb9&name=Transport+network&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&by=group&group=)

### Section 4.1.4, simultaneous open

The final bullet has "For example, if the Local and Remote Endpoints are TCP host candidates, then a TCP simultaneous open [RFC9293] will be performed". Surely not *will* be, but *might* be? I presume that in many or maybe even most cases of rendezvous, one party or the other would happen to go first, and then what RFC 9293 describes as simultaneous open (both parties launching a SYN at the same time) wouldn't occur.

### Section 4.1.5, payload of IP packet... or packets?

The first bullet has "Messages are sent in the payload of IP packet. One packet can carry one or more Messages or parts of a Message." The first sentence either needs an indefinite article on "IP packet" or for "payload" and "packet" to be plural. I think probably you mean "payloads of IP packets" since in general (as the second sentence shows) a message might be split across two or more IP packets.

Also, is it even necessary to say that messages are IP payloads? What else would they be?

### Section 4.1.8, multiplexing transport protocols

The first and third paragraphs have "For multiplexing transport protocols, only Connections within the same Connection Group are allowed to be multiplexed together."

First, it doesn't seem like this sentence needs to occur twice.

Second, I assume that what you mean is "transport protocols that support multiplexing", and if that's right I suggest you say it that way since as written it's ambiguous.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
2023-09-06
18 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-09-06
18 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-09-05
18 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2023-09-05
18 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Firstly, thank you very much for writing this document -- I found it a fascinating read.

Like Rob, I'd like to thank Druv …
[Ballot comment]
Firstly, thank you very much for writing this document -- I found it a fascinating read.

Like Rob, I'd like to thank Druv for the excellent initial Ops-Dir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-arch-17-opsdir-lc-dhody-2023-04-14/ ), and then the followup (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-arch-18-opsdir-telechat-dhody-2023-08-26/)

I only have a few nits / suggestions to make:
1: S 1.4.  Glossary of Key Terms
*Endpoint: An identifier for one side of a Connection (local or
      remote), such as a hostnames or URL.

I'm not really sure that the definition of "Endpoint" works. E.g: the definition of "Connection" is "Shared state of two or more endpoints that persists across Messages". Ok, fine. But can you really have shared state between two **identifiers**? I don't really see how I'd have shared state between e.g hostnames, but I can see how I'd have state between entities *identified* by an identifier like a hostname. I understand what you are aiming for (and also "endpoint" seems to be used in more than one context), but I don't think that the definition as written actually works...

2: S 2.1.  Event-Driven API
This paragraph compares and contrasts the Socket API and the Transport Services API, but in the paragraph starting with "For example, an application first issues a call to receive new data from the connection.", it is unclear under which paradigm you are meaning. I'd suggest: "For example, when using the Transport Services API, an application first ..."
2023-09-05
18 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-09-05
18 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-09-04
18 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
** Section 3.1.
  It is RECOMMENDED that the default values for Properties are selected
  to ensure correctness for the widest set …
[Ballot comment]
** Section 3.1.
  It is RECOMMENDED that the default values for Properties are selected
  to ensure correctness for the widest set of applications,

Is there an opening here to stress “security by default” such that the recommended default values not only ensure correctness but also security and privacy for the end-user for the widest set of applications?

** Section 6.
  However, a Transport
  Services implementation can race different security protocols, e.g.,
  if the application explicitly specifies that it considers them
  equivalent.

I didn’t see any treatment in the earlier text on the “API” properties where an application signals equivalence of security properties.  Could a cross reference please be provided.

** Just as Éric Vyncke called out in his ballot, it was also not obvious to me why this document has a PS status rather than informational.
2023-09-04
18 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-09-04
18 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks to Dhruv from the OPSDIR review.

I found this document to be easy to read and understand and I think that …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks to Dhruv from the OPSDIR review.

I found this document to be easy to read and understand and I think that is great to be defining a new clean transport API for use by applications.  I hope that it is successful and gets traction.  A couple of non-blocking minor comments follow.

Minor level comments:

(1) p 16, sec 4.  Transport Services Architecture and Concepts

  The System Policy provides input from an operating system or other
  global preferences that can constrain or influence how an
  implementation will gather Candidate Paths and Protocol Stacks and
  race the candidates when establishing a Connection.  As the details
  of System Policy configuration and enforcement are largely platform-
  and implementation- dependent, and do not affect application-level
  interoperability, the Transport Services API
  [I-D.ietf-taps-interface] does not specify an interface for reading
  or writing System Policy.

Potentially specifying the System Policy as a YANG Model might be helpful.  Even if different platforms are likely to expose this in different ways, having common standard definitions for the configurable fields would likely help interopability - even if only by defining common names and types for particular properties.


(2) p 23, sec 4.1.6.  Event Handling

  *  Message Received: Delivers received Message content to the
      application, based on a Receive action.  This can include an error
      if the Receive action cannot be satisfied due to the Connection
      being closed.

Perhaps this is already answered by the other documents, but is it always the case that every message requires a separate event/notification to the application?  E.g., I can imagine that under some high performance/throughput scenarios where there are large number of messages being received that the application may only want a single notification that there are one or more messages waiting to be processed, upon which it pulls some/all of them off a receive queue, and only receives another "message received/waiting" event if a message is received when the queue is empty, or the queue is not empty after a subset of the messages have been dequeued.

Regards,
Rob
2023-09-04
18 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-09-03
18 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S1.4

* "Racing: ... along with any security parameters"
  Should this be "Security Parameters" (caps) to refer to the
  subsequent definition?

### S2.1

* "generally uses a try-and-fail model"

  I'm not so sure about "generally"; mostly I've seen apps use a
  kernel-assisted callback style (select/poll/epoll/kqueue/...).

  It's probably not worth spending too much time trying to recraft
  text, but if it seems relevant to mention perhaps give it some
  thought.

### S4.1

* s/connection object/Connection Object/g or
  s/connection object/Connection object/g?

### S4.1.5

* "Messages are sent in the payload of IP packet."

  What does this mean in the context of a TCP-TLS transport or
  a transport using a Framer?

  A Message will indeed be _somewhere_ in the payload section
  of an IP packet, but the statement as written might be construed
  as a Message occupying the entirety of the payload, I think.

### S4.1.7

* What happens if an app wants to half-close without sending
  a message (e.g. accept() or connect() followed by some flavor
  of shutdown())?

  Without having read the other documents yet I'm just wondering
  how this might be implemented.

### S4.2.3

* Should the definitions in Section 1.4 contain an entry for
  Connection Context?

* Should Figure 3 contain some indication of where a Connection
  Context fits?

## Nits

### S1.4

* "such as a hostnames or URL":
  s/hostnames/hostname/ or
  s/a hostnames/hostnames/

### S4

* Consider putting a box around "Network Layer Interface" in
  Figure 3, for consistency with Figures 1 & 2.
2023-09-03
18 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-08-30
18 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-08-30
18 Francesca Palombini
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Robert Sparks for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Y1JAK0kebgGfpCSf8Cr32GMQ2AQ/ and to the authors …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Robert Sparks for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Y1JAK0kebgGfpCSf8Cr32GMQ2AQ/ and to the authors for addressing it. I didn't go through all the github issues (finding it a bit hard to find the relevant ones now), but I believe Robert's comments have been all addressed since v-11, especially the structural problems (architecture-interface).
2023-08-30
18 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-08-28
18 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18

Thank you for the work put into this *NEAT* document (private joke). It is easy …
[Ballot discuss]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-taps-arch-18

Thank you for the work put into this *NEAT* document (private joke). It is easy to read and is an important piece of work required to deploy new transports.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (mainly to have a discussion, do not worry too much), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Michael Welzl for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status *even* if I disagree with the intended status (see below my DISCUSS point).

Other thanks to Bernie Volz, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-taps-arch-18-intdir-telechat-volz-2023-08-25/ (minor nits)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


# DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a *discussion* on the following topics:

## Intended status

This is only to have a public discussion (over email before the telechat or during the IESG telechat), I intend to ballot either NoObj or Yes after this discussion. The shepherd's write-up writes that the intended status is "proposed standard" per TAPS WG charter and I do not see anything related to an architecture document in the charter and even less about its intended status. Moreover, most IETF architecture documents are 'informational'.

See also my comments about section 3.1
2023-08-28
18 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# COMMENTS

## Anycast address

This document differentiates between unicast and multicast addresses, but should there be a specific case of anycast addresses …
[Ballot comment]

# COMMENTS

## Anycast address

This document differentiates between unicast and multicast addresses, but should there be a specific case of anycast addresses ?

## Section 1.4

I am not a transport expert but I would have included the transport protocol in `Socket: The combination of a destination IP address and a destination port number [RFC8303].`

## Section 2

Should 'DNS' be included in `system-provided stub resolver` ?

Figure 1 & 2 are nice but, please, add a references to them in the text.

In `it describes how implementations can use multiple IP addresses` isn't it hidden usually to the application ?

## Section 2.3

In `The Socket API for protocols like TCP is generally limited to connecting to a single address over a single interface.` should there be a mention of one or several 'source' IP addresses ? Should 'address' be qualified by 'IP' (as opposed to a DNS name or "Internet address" aka URL)?

## Section 2.4

How can a (nice) informational RFC 8170 "requires" in `incremental deployability [RFC8170] requires coexistence`. Suggest to use "recommend" or something similar to avoid confusion.

## Section 3.1

The presence of normative BCP14 terms ("SHOULD", ...) in an architecture document looks weird to me (see my DISCUSS point above). Is this document an 'architecture' document or an 'architecture and requirements' one ?

## Section 3.3

What is the exact meaning of 'safely' in `Equivalent Protocol Stacks can be safely swapped or raced in parallel` ?

## Section 4.1

s/Establishment (Section 4.1.4) focuses on the *actions* that an application *takes on* the connection objects/Establishment (Section 4.1.4) focuses on the *requests* that an application *sets to* the connection objects/ as it is not really the application doing those actions ?

## Section 4.1.1

Please state the obvious: a multicast endpoint can only be a destination endpoint.

## Section 4.1.3

Do the security parameters include DNS resolution security parameters ? E.g., mandatory use of DNSSEC or DoH?

## Section 4.1.5

Unsure whether the sentence `Messages are sent in the payload of IP packet` is really useful. Suggest to remove it.

## Section 4.2.2

Suggest to mention RFC 7556 in the discussion about different local addresses (interfaces?) and DNS resolvers.


# NITS

## Section 2

Is a capitalised "Connections" required in `the interface for an application to create Connections and transfer data` ? Or should there be a text in the glossary section about the use of capitalised terms ?

## Section 2.1

s/all interaction using the Transport Services API is expected to be asynchronous/all interactionS using the Transport Services API ARE expected to be asynchronous/ ?
2023-08-28
18 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-08-26
18 Dhruv Dhody Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list.
2023-08-25
18 Bernie Volz Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bernie Volz. Sent review to list.
2023-08-23
18 Bernie Volz Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Bernie Volz
2023-08-21
18 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2023-08-21
18 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2023-08-16
18 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-09-07
2023-08-16
18 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot has been issued
2023-08-16
18 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-08-16
18 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Created "Approve" ballot
2023-08-16
18 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2023-08-16
18 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot writeup was changed
2023-06-23
18 Jean Mahoney Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Suhas Nandakumar Last Call GENART review
2023-06-23
18 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2023-05-30
18 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2023-05-30
18 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-05-30
18 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2023-05-30
18 Brian Trammell New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-18.txt
2023-05-30
18 Brian Trammell New version approved
2023-05-30
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2023-05-30
18 Brian Trammell Uploaded new revision
2023-04-26
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Revised I-D needed to address the comments and feedback recived in the IETF last call.
2023-04-26
17 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Tommy Pauly, Brian Trammell, Anna Brunstrom, Gorry Fairhurst, Colin Perkins (IESG state changed)
2023-04-26
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-04-14
17 Dhruv Dhody Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody. Sent review to list.
2023-04-14
17 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-04-12
17 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-04-12
17 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-taps-arch-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-taps-arch-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2023-04-12
17 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody
2023-04-07
17 Watson Ladd Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list.
2023-04-06
17 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2023-04-06
17 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar
2023-03-30
17 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-03-30
17 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-04-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-taps-arch@ietf.org, michawe@ifi.uio.no, taps-chairs@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-04-14):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-taps-arch@ietf.org, michawe@ifi.uio.no, taps-chairs@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (An Architecture for Transport Services) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Services WG (taps) to
consider the following document: - 'An Architecture for Transport Services'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-04-14. 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


  This document describes an architecture for exposing transport
  protocol features to applications for network communication, a
  Transport Services system.  The Transport Services Application
  Programming Interface (API) is based on an asynchronous, event-driven
  interaction pattern.  This API uses messages for representing data
  transfer to applications, and describes how implementations can use
  multiple IP addresses, multiple protocols, and multiple paths, and
  provide multiple application streams.  This document further defines
  common terminology and concepts to be used in definitions of a
  Transport Service API and a Transport Services implementation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-arch/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2023-03-30
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-03-30
17 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2023-03-30
17 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2023-03-30
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Last call was requested
2023-03-30
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot approval text was generated
2023-03-30
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Ballot writeup was generated
2023-03-30
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-03-30
17 Zaheduzzaman Sarker Last call announcement was generated
2023-03-29
17 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-17.txt
2023-03-29
17 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-03-29
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2023-03-29
17 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2023-03-09
16 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2023-03-09
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-03-09
16 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-16.txt
2023-03-09
16 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2023-03-09
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2023-03-09
16 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2023-02-03
15 (System) Changed action holders to Colin Perkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Brian Trammell, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Anna Brunstrom, Tommy Pauly (IESG state changed)
2023-02-03
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2022-12-21
15 (System) Changed action holders to Zaheduzzaman Sarker (IESG state changed)
2022-12-21
15 Zaheduzzaman Sarker IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-12-19
15 Reese Enghardt
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reached broad agreement, with contributions from most active WG
members.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.


4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

I guess this one doesn't count as a "protocol document".


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG
itself, and has had secdir and artart early review.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No MIB models, YANG models, media types, URI types etc. are used in the document, and so I think such a formal expert review is not needed.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

It does not contain a YANG module.


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No sections of the document are written in a formal language.


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
  reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
  and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
  reviews?

None of these issues have been identified. Since the document only gives a high-level overview, it is not prone to the typical problems listed for transport documents, such as issues with PDU sizes, port number use, hijacking codepoints, etc.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
  Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
  [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
  of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.

Why is this the proper type: the charter of the TAPS WG says that this document shall take that status. The status is correctly reflected in the Datatracker state attribute: "Intended RFC status". I don't see any other related state attribute.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
  property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
  the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
  not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
  to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes; no IPR issues are known.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
  listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
  is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, they have all shown their willingness to be listed as such. There are five authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
  tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
  authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
  some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The idnits tool complains about an Umlaut "ü". The authors decide to ignore this and leave it up to the RFC Editor.

The document has a "Security and Privacy Considerations" Section. According to the idnits tool and https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content these should be two separate sections. The authors decided to leave this as it is for now and let the ADs decide about this matter.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
  Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
  the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
  references?

None.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
  97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
  list them.

None.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
  submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
  If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
  so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
  listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
  introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
  where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
  associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
  that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
  that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
  allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA considerations.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
  future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
  Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA considerations.



[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2022-12-19
15 Reese Enghardt Responsible AD changed to Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-12-19
15 Reese Enghardt IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2022-12-19
15 Reese Enghardt IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2022-12-19
15 Reese Enghardt Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2022-12-19
15 Reese Enghardt IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2022-10-21
15 Michael Welzl
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.


## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reached broad agreement, with contributions from most active WG
members.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No.


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.


4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

I guess this one doesn't count as a "protocol document".


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

This draft has benefited from broad TSV area review within the WG
itself, and has had secdir and artart early review.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No MIB models, YANG models, media types, URI types etc. are used in the document, and so I think such a formal expert review is not needed.


7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

It does not contain a YANG module.


8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No sections of the document are written in a formal language.


## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes.


10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
  reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
  and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
  reviews?

None of these issues have been identified. Since the document only gives a high-level overview, it is not prone to the typical problems listed for transport documents, such as issues with PDU sizes, port number use, hijacking codepoints, etc.


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
  Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
  [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
  of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard.

Why is this the proper type: the charter of the TAPS WG says that this document shall take that status. The status is correctly reflected in the Datatracker state attribute: "Intended RFC status". I don't see any other related state attribute.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
  property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
  the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
  not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
  to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes; no IPR issues are known.


13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
  listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
  is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, they have all shown their willingness to be listed as such. There are five authors.


14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
  tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
  authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
  some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The idnits tool complains about an Umlaut "ü". The authors decide to ignore this and leave it up to the RFC Editor.

The document has a "Security and Privacy Considerations" Section. According to the idnits tool and https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content these should be two separate sections. The authors decided to leave this as it is for now and let the ADs decide about this matter.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
  Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.


16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
  the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
  references?

None.


17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
  97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
  list them.

None.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
  submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
  If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.


19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
  so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
  listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
  introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
  where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.


20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
  associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
  that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
  that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
  allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

There are no IANA considerations.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
  future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
  Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

There are no IANA considerations.



[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2022-10-20
15 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-15.txt
2022-10-20
15 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2022-10-20
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2022-10-20
15 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2022-09-27
14 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-14.txt
2022-09-27
14 Brian Trammell New version approved
2022-09-27
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2022-09-27
14 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2022-09-26
13 Aaron Falk Notification list changed to michawe@ifi.uio.no because the document shepherd was set
2022-09-26
13 Aaron Falk Document shepherd changed to Michael Welzl
2022-06-27
13 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-13.txt
2022-06-27
13 Tommy Pauly New version approved
2022-06-27
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Tommy Pauly
2022-06-27
13 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2022-05-30
12 Watson Ladd Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list.
2022-05-19
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2022-05-19
12 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2022-05-19
12 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Loganaden Velvindron was withdrawn
2022-03-22
12 Reese Enghardt Added to session: IETF-113: taps  Wed-1300
2022-01-03
12 Brian Trammell New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-12.txt
2022-01-03
12 (System) New version approved
2022-01-03
12 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Christopher Wood , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Christopher Wood , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel , Tommy Pauly , taps-chairs@ietf.org
2022-01-03
12 Brian Trammell Uploaded new revision
2021-09-17
11 Robert Sparks Request for Early review by ARTART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list.
2021-08-05
11 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Loganaden Velvindron
2021-08-05
11 Tero Kivinen Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Loganaden Velvindron
2021-07-31
11 Barry Leiba Request for Early review by ARTART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2021-07-31
11 Barry Leiba Request for Early review by ARTART is assigned to Robert Sparks
2021-07-30
11 Reese Enghardt Requested Early review by ARTART
2021-07-30
11 Reese Enghardt Requested Early review by SECDIR
2021-07-28
11 Reese Enghardt Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts
2021-07-22
11 Reese Enghardt Added to session: IETF-111: taps  Tue-1430
2021-07-12
11 Brian Trammell New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-11.txt
2021-07-12
11 (System) New version approved
2021-07-12
11 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Christopher Wood , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anna Brunstrom , Brian Trammell , Christopher Wood , Colin Perkins , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel , Tommy Pauly
2021-07-12
11 Brian Trammell Uploaded new revision
2021-04-30
10 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-10.txt
2021-04-30
10 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2021-04-30
10 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2021-02-19
09 Aaron Falk Holding this doc until the API & implemention docs have been through WGLC and will send to IESG as a set.
2021-02-19
09 Aaron Falk IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2020-11-02
09 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-09.txt
2020-11-02
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2020-11-02
09 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2020-07-13
08 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-08.txt
2020-07-13
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2020-07-13
08 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2020-03-09
07 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-07.txt
2020-03-09
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2020-03-09
07 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2020-01-13
06 Aaron Falk WGLC scheduled to conclude Jan 20, 2020.
2020-01-13
06 Aaron Falk IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2019-12-23
06 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-06.txt
2019-12-23
06 (System) New version approved
2019-12-23
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Philipp Tiesel , Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Philipp Tiesel , Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Anna Brunstrom
2019-12-23
06 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-12-23
06 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-05.txt
2019-11-04
05 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tommy Pauly)
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Philipp Tiesel , Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Philipp Tiesel , Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Anna Brunstrom
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-11-04
05 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-07-12
04 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-105: taps  Mon-1330
2019-07-08
04 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-04.txt
2019-07-08
04 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: taps-chairs@ietf.org, Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: taps-chairs@ietf.org, Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2019-07-08
04 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2019-03-20
03 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-104: taps  Fri-1050
2019-03-11
03 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-03.txt
2019-03-11
03 (System) New version approved
2019-03-11
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2019-03-11
03 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2018-10-22
02 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-103: taps  Wed-1540
2018-10-22
02 Brian Trammell New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-02.txt
2018-10-22
02 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2018-10-22
02 Brian Trammell Uploaded new revision
2018-07-17
01 Aaron Falk Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-07-17
01 Aaron Falk Discussed and hummed on at IETF-102 meeting in Montreal.
2018-07-17
01 Aaron Falk Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-07-12
01 Aaron Falk Added to session: IETF-102: taps  Tue-1550
2018-07-01
01 Tommy Pauly New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-01.txt
2018-07-01
01 (System) New version approved
2018-07-01
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christopher Wood , Tommy Pauly , Colin Perkins , Brian Trammell , Gorry Fairhurst , Philipp Tiesel , Anna Brunstrom
2018-07-01
01 Tommy Pauly Uploaded new revision
2018-05-15
00 Aaron Falk Added to session: interim-2018-taps-01
2018-04-30
00 Brian Trammell New version available: draft-ietf-taps-arch-00.txt
2018-04-30
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-04-30
00 Brian Trammell Set submitter to "Brian Trammell ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: taps-chairs@ietf.org
2018-04-30
00 Brian Trammell Uploaded new revision