Requirements for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks
draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-09-07
|
09 | Lou Berger | see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/?q=draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements |
2018-09-07
|
09 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2018-09-03
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-09-03
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2018-04-16
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | With the completion of the framework document, this document has served its purpose as the content is consumed in the framework. The framework document does … With the completion of the framework document, this document has served its purpose as the content is consumed in the framework. The framework document does not depend on it - it only references it one time. I recommend not to publish it unless significant rework is done to add content. I've put it to the state "AD is watching" which will allow the working group to determine if there is an interest/need. |
2018-04-16
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Expert Review |
2018-03-02
|
09 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-09.txt |
2018-03-02
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-02
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Jongyoon Shin , Kwang-koog Lee , Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee |
2018-03-02
|
09 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-28
|
08 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Papadimitriou Dimitri. |
2018-02-14
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Papadimitriou Dimitri |
2018-02-14
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Papadimitriou Dimitri |
2018-02-14
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2018-02-14
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Dhruv Dhody |
2018-02-13
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2018-02-13
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2018-02-13
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > > Changes are expected over time. … > 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 24 February 2012. > > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Informational. > Why is this the proper type of RFC? This is a requirements document. It provides requirements for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks. > Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes. > > (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 provides a set of requirements for abstraction and control of Traffic Engineering networks to facilitate virtual network operation via the creation of a single virtualized network or a seamless service. This supports operators in viewing and controlling different domains (at any dimension: applied technology, administrative zones, or vendor-specific technology islands) as a single virtualized network. > Working Group Summary > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? This is part of the initial set of ACTN documents worked on by the WG. There was considerable debate at various stages of the WG process on the various requirements specified in the document. The authors addressed all of these concerns by adding relevant text to the document. > > 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, 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? This document has been discussed and reviewed thoroughly by the WG. While there have been no official statements on implementations addressing these requirements, the authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation is expected. > Personnel > > Who is the Document Shepherd? Vishnu Pavan Beeram > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard > > (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 as part of normal WG progress and WG last call. The Shepherd believes 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? No. > If so, describe the review that took place. N/A. > > (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. No specific concerns. > > (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, see thread https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3Z-TUhOBmm2ZuJ9emAjE_Ckp8pE > > (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 disclosed. > (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? Solid among those who are interested. “Strong concurrence of a fair number of individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable characterization. > (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 extreme discontent seen. > > (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. The document passes ID nits. > > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. > (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). The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is appropriate (no actions for IANA) for this draft. > (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. None. > (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. N/A |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | This is a requirements document. |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | Changed document writeup |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | Notification list changed to Vishnu Beeram <vbeeram@juniper.net> |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Vishnu Beeram | Document shepherd changed to Vishnu Pavan Beeram |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-08.txt |
2018-01-26
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-26
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Jongyoon Shin , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Jongyoon Shin , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee , Sergio Belotti , Khuzema Pithewan |
2018-01-26
|
08 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-19
|
07 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2017-12-03
|
07 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-11-15
|
07 | Vishnu Beeram | IPR Poll [Received all required responses]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3Z-TUhOBmm2ZuJ9emAjE_Ckp8pE leeyoung@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FBLQUk9LpGfArdeYU6Lm3OikzDI dhruv.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/acOmi0NG_dabULOROUvy3c8Kv-0 sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/P2YFKtBL40FTc-2srU3--axZffM kpithewan@infinera.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CME98IaJNpFhLyIaIizqnY4RypU daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XFzcPnH6oS0Gu1P8xw_R8k7tcZ4 ta-miyasaka@kddi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sHc_uDhRCvlmn0hrpfNLhKhYpro jongyoon.shin@sk.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibxAcmf18mmrDVu7NdeScw1pQPI kwangkoog.lee@kt.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CT_XW2D3Q32QoujdBpT07GurcuA xuyunbin@ritt.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YRs1soCtkRv8DNDYFZ8WfxEAQew … IPR Poll [Received all required responses]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3Z-TUhOBmm2ZuJ9emAjE_Ckp8pE leeyoung@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FBLQUk9LpGfArdeYU6Lm3OikzDI dhruv.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/acOmi0NG_dabULOROUvy3c8Kv-0 sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/P2YFKtBL40FTc-2srU3--axZffM kpithewan@infinera.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CME98IaJNpFhLyIaIizqnY4RypU daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XFzcPnH6oS0Gu1P8xw_R8k7tcZ4 ta-miyasaka@kddi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sHc_uDhRCvlmn0hrpfNLhKhYpro jongyoon.shin@sk.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibxAcmf18mmrDVu7NdeScw1pQPI kwangkoog.lee@kt.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CT_XW2D3Q32QoujdBpT07GurcuA xuyunbin@ritt.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YRs1soCtkRv8DNDYFZ8WfxEAQew toshiaki.suzuki.cs@hitachi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XfyNfFgv7vJX4bkvii6gJaMKCTg zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/MTgiG2RlvAhb2n8DYM-1OmY4iuo |
2017-11-12
|
07 | Vishnu Beeram | IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3Z-TUhOBmm2ZuJ9emAjE_Ckp8pE leeyoung@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FBLQUk9LpGfArdeYU6Lm3OikzDI dhruv.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/acOmi0NG_dabULOROUvy3c8Kv-0 sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/P2YFKtBL40FTc-2srU3--axZffM kpithewan@infinera.com daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XFzcPnH6oS0Gu1P8xw_R8k7tcZ4 ta-miyasaka@kddi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sHc_uDhRCvlmn0hrpfNLhKhYpro jongyoon.shin@sk.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibxAcmf18mmrDVu7NdeScw1pQPI kwangkoog.lee@kt.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CT_XW2D3Q32QoujdBpT07GurcuA xuyunbin@ritt.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YRs1soCtkRv8DNDYFZ8WfxEAQew toshiaki.suzuki.cs@hitachi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XfyNfFgv7vJX4bkvii6gJaMKCTg zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/MTgiG2RlvAhb2n8DYM-1OmY4iuo Pending: … IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3Z-TUhOBmm2ZuJ9emAjE_Ckp8pE leeyoung@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FBLQUk9LpGfArdeYU6Lm3OikzDI dhruv.ietf@gmail.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/acOmi0NG_dabULOROUvy3c8Kv-0 sergio.belotti@nokia.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/P2YFKtBL40FTc-2srU3--axZffM kpithewan@infinera.com daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XFzcPnH6oS0Gu1P8xw_R8k7tcZ4 ta-miyasaka@kddi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sHc_uDhRCvlmn0hrpfNLhKhYpro jongyoon.shin@sk.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ibxAcmf18mmrDVu7NdeScw1pQPI kwangkoog.lee@kt.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CT_XW2D3Q32QoujdBpT07GurcuA xuyunbin@ritt.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YRs1soCtkRv8DNDYFZ8WfxEAQew toshiaki.suzuki.cs@hitachi.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/XfyNfFgv7vJX4bkvii6gJaMKCTg zhenghaomian@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/MTgiG2RlvAhb2n8DYM-1OmY4iuo Pending: Khuzema Pithewan |
2017-10-27
|
07 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-07.txt |
2017-10-27
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-27
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Dhruv Dhody , Jongyoon Shin , Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Dhruv Dhody , Jongyoon Shin , Daniele Ceccarelli , Kwang-koog Lee , Young Lee , Sergio Belotti , Khuzema Pithewan |
2017-10-27
|
07 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-10-11
|
06 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-06.txt |
2017-10-11
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-10-11
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Jongyoon Shin , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Takuya Miyasaka , Jongyoon Shin , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli , Young Lee , Sergio Belotti , Khuzema Pithewan |
2017-10-11
|
06 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-12
|
05 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-05.txt |
2017-05-12
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-12
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniele Ceccarelli , Dhruv Dhody , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee , Sergio Belotti , Khuzema Pithewan |
2017-05-12
|
05 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-03
|
04 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-04.txt |
2017-01-03
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-03
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Khuzema Pithewan" , "Daniele Ceccarelli" , "Young Lee" , "Sergio Belotti" , "Dhruv Dhody" |
2017-01-03
|
04 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2016-07-06
|
03 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-03.txt |
2016-04-13
|
02 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-02.txt |
2015-10-01
|
01 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-01.txt |
2015-10-01
|
00 | Lou Berger | This document now replaces draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements instead of None |
2015-10-01
|
00 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-00.txt |