The RACK-TLP Loss Detection Algorithm for TCP
draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-01-26
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Tina Tsou Last Call OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2021-02-18
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-02-01
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2021-01-21
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-12-27
|
15 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Assignment of request for Telechat review by INTDIR to Ted Lemon was marked no-response |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-15.txt |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-12-22
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nandita Dukkipati , Neal Cardwell , Priyaranjan Jha , Yuchung Cheng |
2020-12-22
|
15 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for presenting this complicated topic in a very easy-to-read manner! Section 3.3.2 1. The reordering window SHOULD be set to zero … [Ballot comment] Thanks for presenting this complicated topic in a very easy-to-read manner! Section 3.3.2 1. The reordering window SHOULD be set to zero if no reordering has been observed on the connection so far, and either (a) three segments have been delivered out of order since the last recovery I assume there's some subtle technical difference between "reordering" and "segments delivered out of order" that makes this a reasonable thing to say ... but it would be nice if the distincion was made more clear (whether here or in earlier text). Section 6.2 Among all the segments newly ACKed or SACKed by this ACK that pass the checks above, update the RACK.rtt to be the RTT sample calculated using this ACK. Furthermore, record the most recent Segment.xmit_ts in RACK.xmit_ts if it is ahead of RACK.xmit_ts. If Segment.xmit_ts equals RACK.xmit_ts (e.g. due to clock granularity limits) then compare Segment.end_seq and RACK.end_seq to break the tie. Perhaps we should state what the result of breaking the tie is used for (i.e., updating RACK.segment & co.)? To avoid the issue above, RACK dynamically adapts to higher degrees of reordering using DSACK options from the receiver. Receiving an ACK with a DSACK option indicates a possible spurious retransmission, suggesting that RACK.reo_wnd may be too small. The RACK.reo_wnd increases linearly for every round trip in which the sender receives some DSACK option, so that after N distinct round trips in which a DSACK is received, the RACK.reo_wnd becomes (N+1) * min_RTT / 4, with an upper-bound of SRTT. What constitutes a "distinct round trip"? Return min(RACK.min_RTT / 4 * RACK.reo_wnd_mult, SRTT) I suggest reordering the expression to be min(RACK.reo_wnd_mult * RACK.min_RTT / 4, SRTT), to avoid needing to consider the order of operations and operator precedence in the pseudocode. (soapbox: in formal mathematics, there is no "division" operation, just multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, in part because it makes dealing with associativity and commutativity of operations harder to reason about.) Section 8 sender SHOULD cancel any other pending timer(s). An implementation is to have one timer with an additional state variable indicating the type of the timer. nit: maybe "is expected to have one timer", to avoid any risk of being interpreted as over-specifying implementation behavior? Is there anything to say about increasing the usage of fast recovery (vs RTO) potentially having an aggregate effect globally on how much data is in flight and increasing the overall risk of congestion? (I mostly assume not, but it's kind of my job to ask.) Section 13.1 In terms of how we reference it, RFC 3042 seems like it could be informative. |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Section 1: In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of … [Ballot comment] Section 1: In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. This addition to the RFC 8174 boiler text appears redundant and can be removed. I assume it predates RFC 8174. |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot comment text updated for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, I didn't manage to review the algorithm in detail (way outside my area), but surrounding text was clear, understandable and interesting for … [Ballot comment] Hi, I didn't manage to review the algorithm in detail (way outside my area), but surrounding text was clear, understandable and interesting for someone without TCP expertise, so thank you for that. One minor NIT would be the change the footer from "RACK" to "RACK-TLP". Section 9.5 talks about using RACK for other protocols and I wanted to confirm that it does mean only RACK and not RACK-TLP for this case. Regards, Rob |
2020-12-17
|
14 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this work. It's interesting stuff! Please expand DUPACK on first use. Section 2 is curious. As I read it, it establishes … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this work. It's interesting stuff! Please expand DUPACK on first use. Section 2 is curious. As I read it, it establishes a normative recommendation to use it, but doesn't update either of its antecedents (RFC 5681 or RFC 6675) such that someone reading those might be referred to this. |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 3.1 ] * "Conceptually, RACK puts a virtual timer for" Instead of "puts" perhaps "uses", "keeps", "imagines", … [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 3.1 ] * "Conceptually, RACK puts a virtual timer for" Instead of "puts" perhaps "uses", "keeps", "imagines", or something? [ section 4 ] * "a timestamp whose granularity that is finer" -> "a timestamp with a granularity that is finer", or "a timestamp whose granularity is finer", perhaps [ section 9.4 ] * "sender takes longer time" -> "sender takes a longer time"? |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Just a very small comment: — Section 1 — In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when … [Ballot comment] Just a very small comment: — Section 1 — In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in UPPER CASE. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. I don’t particularly object to that quoted text, but it’s redundant: the (correct) BCP 14 boilerplate before it already says that. What’s the purpose of adding this text? (I’m guessing it’s a remnant: it was there with the old BCP 14 boilerplate frim 2119, and when you switched to 8174 you didn’t remove this.) |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-12-16
|
14 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-12-15
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Paul Wouters for the SECDIR review. |
2020-12-15
|
14 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-12-15
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-12-10
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2020-12-10
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon |
2020-12-10
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Assignment of request for Telechat review by INTDIR to Jouni Korhonen was marked no-response |
2020-12-08
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2020-12-08
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2020-12-08
|
14 | Jean-Michel Combes | Assignment of request for Telechat review by INTDIR to Jean-Michel Combes was rejected |
2020-12-08
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Jean-Michel Combes |
2020-12-08
|
14 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Jean-Michel Combes |
2020-12-07
|
14 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2020-12-06
|
14 | Peter Yee | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. |
2020-12-02
|
14 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2020-12-02
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-12-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2020-12-02
|
14 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-14.txt |
2020-12-02
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-12-02
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Priyaranjan Jha , Yuchung Cheng , Nandita Dukkipati |
2020-12-02
|
14 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-30
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-12-17 |
2020-11-30
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-11-30
|
13 | Martin Duke | Ballot has been issued |
2020-11-30
|
13 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-11-30
|
13 | Martin Duke | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-11-30
|
13 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-11-30
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-11-27
|
13 | Paul Wouters | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Wouters. Sent review to list. |
2020-11-25
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2020-11-25
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2020-11-24
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-11-24
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-13, 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-tcpm-rack-13, 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-11-21
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2020-11-21
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
2020-11-19
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Wouters |
2020-11-19
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Wouters |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-11-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack.all@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-rack@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-11-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack.all@ietf.org, tcpm@ietf.org, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-rack@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tuexen@fh-muenster.de Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (The RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: - 'The RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP' 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 2020-11-30. 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 presents the RACK-TLP loss detection algorithm for TCP. RACK-TLP uses per-segment transmit timestamps and selective acknowledgements (SACK) and has two parts: RACK ("Recent ACKnowledgment") starts fast recovery quickly using time-based inferences derived from ACK feedback. TLP ("Tail Loss Probe") leverages RACK and sends a probe packet to trigger ACK feedback to avoid retransmission timeout (RTO) events. Compared to the widely used DUPACK threshold approach, RACK-TLP detects losses more efficiently when there are application-limited flights of data, lost retransmissions, or data packet reordering events. It is intended to be an alternative to the DUPACK threshold approach. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-rack/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Martin Duke | Last call was requested |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Martin Duke | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Martin Duke | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-11-16
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2020-11-05
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-11-05
|
13 | Martin Duke | State Change Notice email list changed to draft-ietf-tcpm-rack.all@ietf.org |
2020-11-05
|
13 | Martin Duke | Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke |
2020-11-05
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-11-05
|
13 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-cheng-tcpm-rack/ |
2020-11-05
|
13 | Martin Duke | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2020-11-05
|
13 | Michael Tüxen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 1 November 2019. (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? The intended status is Proposed Standard. This is the proper state since the document specifies a loss recover mechanism, which is implemented and and has a substantial deployment. Therefore Experimental is not appropriate. This explicitly decided by the working group. The type indicated in the title page header is Standards Track. (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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies a loss recovery algorithm for TCP, which detects losses more efficiently than the widely used duplicate acknowledgement based algorithm, when there are application-limited flights of data, lost retransmissions, or data packet reordering events. Working Group Summary: There is very strong support for this document in the working group. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The core mechanisms described in the document are implemented in FreeBSD, Linux, and Windows. They are in active use on these platforms. RACK can also be used by other transport protocols. QUIC loss recovery uses the same ideas and there exists also an implementation for SCTP within a simulation environment. The document got substantial comments during the first working group last Call, which were addressed and a second working group last call made sure that the working group is fine with the changes. Personnel: The Document Shepherd is Michael Tüxen (tuexen@fh-muenster.de). The Responsible Area Director is Martin Duke (martin.h.duke@gmail.com). (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. I read the document to especially ensure that the description of the algorithm allows not only implementations in TCP stacks but provides enough background to implement it for other transport protocols. This document is ready for publication. (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. There are no issues. (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? All authors have confirmed that all IPR disclosures required have already been filed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures are found by https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?draft=draft-ietf-tcpm-rack&submit=draft&rfc=&doctitle=&group=&holder=&iprtitle=&patent= (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 WG consensus is very strong and the document is supported by a large number of key contributors of the WG. (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. Two false positives are reported: * Pseudocode is detected as code due to comments. Therefore the too suggests to use and |
2020-11-02
|
13 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-13.txt |
2020-11-02
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-02
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Nandita Dukkipati , Yuchung Cheng , Priyaranjan Jha , Neal Cardwell |
2020-11-02
|
13 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-02
|
12 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-12.txt |
2020-11-02
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-11-02
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Priyaranjan Jha , Neal Cardwell , Nandita Dukkipati , Yuchung Cheng |
2020-11-02
|
12 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-07
|
11 | Michael Tüxen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2020-09-30
|
11 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-11.txt |
2020-09-30
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-30
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Priyaranjan Jha , Yuchung Cheng , Neal Cardwell , Nandita Dukkipati |
2020-09-30
|
11 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-18
|
10 | Michael Tüxen | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2020-09-18
|
10 | Michael Tüxen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-08-22
|
10 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-10.txt |
2020-08-22
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-08-22
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Priyaranjan Jha , Nandita Dukkipati , Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng |
2020-08-22
|
10 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-13
|
09 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-09.txt |
2020-07-13
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-13
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yuchung Cheng , Neal Cardwell , Nandita Dukkipati , Priyaranjan Jha |
2020-07-13
|
09 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-27
|
08 | Martin Duke | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2020-05-27
|
08 | Martin Duke | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2020-03-10
|
08 | Michael Tüxen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-03-09
|
08 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-08.txt |
2020-03-09
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Priyaranjan Jha , Neal Cardwell , Nandita Dukkipati , Yuchung Cheng |
2020-03-09
|
08 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-24
|
07 | Martin Duke | Notification list changed to Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, =?utf-8?q?Michael_T=C3=BCxen?= <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> from Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> |
2020-02-24
|
07 | Martin Duke | Document shepherd changed to Michael Tüxen |
2020-01-17
|
07 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-07.txt |
2020-01-17
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-17
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , Priyaranjan Jha , Nandita Dukkipati |
2020-01-17
|
07 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-12-04
|
06 | Michael Tüxen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-12-04
|
06 | Michael Tüxen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Experimental |
2019-11-17
|
06 | Michael Tüxen | Notification list changed to Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> |
2019-11-17
|
06 | Michael Tüxen | Document shepherd changed to Martin Duke |
2019-11-01
|
06 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-06.txt |
2019-11-01
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-01
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , Priyaranjan Jha , Nandita Dukkipati |
2019-11-01
|
06 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-28
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-04-26
|
05 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-05.txt |
2019-04-26
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-26
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , Priyaranjan Jha , Nandita Dukkipati |
2019-04-26
|
05 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-01-03
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-07-02
|
04 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-04.txt |
2018-07-02
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-02
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , Priyaranjan Jha , Nandita Dukkipati |
2018-07-02
|
04 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-07
|
03 | Michael Tüxen | Added to session: IETF-101: tcpm Mon-0930 |
2018-03-05
|
03 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-03.txt |
2018-03-05
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , tcpm-chairs@ietf.org, Nandita Dukkipati |
2018-03-05
|
03 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2017-09-14
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-03-13
|
02 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-02.txt |
2017-03-13
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-13
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neal Cardwell , Yuchung Cheng , Nandita Dukkipati |
2017-03-13
|
02 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-11
|
01 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Added to session: IETF-97: tcpm Mon-0930 |
2016-10-31
|
01 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-01.txt |
2016-10-31
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-31
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Neal Cardwell" , "Yuchung Cheng" , tcpm-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-10-31
|
01 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-17
|
00 | Michael Scharf | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2016-09-17
|
00 | Michael Scharf | This document now replaces draft-cheng-tcpm-rack instead of None |
2016-09-17
|
00 | Yuchung Cheng | New version available: draft-ietf-tcpm-rack-00.txt |
2016-09-17
|
00 | Yuchung Cheng | WG -00 approved |
2016-09-17
|
00 | Yuchung Cheng | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-17
|
00 | Yuchung Cheng | Set submitter to "Yuchung Cheng ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: tcpm-chairs@ietf.org |