Domain Subobjects for Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-06-08
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-06-03
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-05-31
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-04-27
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-02-09
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-01-05
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2016-01-05
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-01-04
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-12-31
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2015-12-31
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-12-31
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-12-31
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-12-31
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2015-12-31
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-12-31
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-31
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-30
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-11-29
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh. |
2015-11-19
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-11-19
|
05 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-05.txt |
2015-11-19
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-11-19
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-11-19
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-04.txt |
2015-11-19
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-11-19
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] In Section 5.1, to be consistent with how IANA prefers registry URLs to be specified, please remove the string "/rsvp-parameters.xhtml" from the three … [Ballot comment] In Section 5.1, to be consistent with how IANA prefers registry URLs to be specified, please remove the string "/rsvp-parameters.xhtml" from the three IANA URLs. I'll also note that IANA doesn't guarantee the persistence of the URL fragment identifiers (the end of the URL that starts with "#"). You might discuss with IANA whether it's OK to leave them, or better to remove those URLs. |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-11-18
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-11-17
|
03 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-11-17
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-11-16
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text: The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by legacy implementations. If one of the … [Ballot comment] In this text: The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by legacy implementations. If one of the subobjects is received in a RSVP-TE object that does not understand it, it will behave as described in [RFC3209] and [RFC4874]. I think something is confused. Do RSVP-TE objects understand subobjects? Or is this The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood by legacy implementations. If a legacy implementations receives one of the subobjects in an RSVP-TE object that it does not understand, the legacy implementation will behave as described in [RFC3209] and [RFC4874]. correct? |
2015-11-16
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-11-16
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-11-16
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-11-13
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-11-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-11-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-11-12
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Liang Xia. |
2015-11-10
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2015-11-10
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-11-19 |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to none from draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects.all@ietf.org |
2015-11-09
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-11-09
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-11-07
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. |
2015-10-29
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-29
|
03 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document are dependent on the approval of another Internet Draft. Specifically, we've been asked to assign the same values that draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence is asking us to assign in other registries. Because we cannot reserve values, if both documents are not approved at the same time, the actions for one document will be placed on hold until both documents' actions are approved. IANA understands that this document calls for two IANA actions upon its approval. Please see below for a note about an additional action related to this document. First, in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE Subobjects subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ Three new subobjects are to be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: 4 byte AS number Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: OSPF Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: IS-IS Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the EXCLDE_ROUTE Subobjects subregistry of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/ Three new subobjects are to be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: 4 byte AS number Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: OSPF Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: IS-IS Area ID Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors request that the additions to the two registries should be identical. However, there is a third action that isn't mentioned in the IANA Considerations section: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence lists it as an additional reference for six new registrations. Can this be noted in the IANA Considerations section? This is useful in updating references after the document is issued an RFC number. NOTE: IANA cannot reserve specific values. However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120. |
2015-10-29
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Liang Xia |
2015-10-29
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Liang Xia |
2015-10-28
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-10-28
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects.all@ietf.org |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: teas@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, vbeeram@juniper.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: teas@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, vbeeram@juniper.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)' as Experimental RFC 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-11-09. 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 The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly excluded in a path setup. This document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude 4-Byte Autonomous System (AS) and Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area during path setup. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2186/ |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-10-26
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" to (None) |
2015-10-09
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda. |
2015-09-25
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tomonori Takeda |
2015-09-25
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tomonori Takeda |
2015-09-23
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-09-21
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt |
2015-08-17
|
02 | 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)? Experimental. > Why is this the proper type of RFC? The document defines RSVP related formats that are at this juncture being used only for "experimental" purposes. The experimentation is expected to continue until there is sufficient experience gained to determine if this is a function worth standardization. > 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. The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly excluded in a path setup. This document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude domain during path setup where domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility (such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS)). This is a companion document to Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the domain sequence [PCE-DOMAIN] (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/). > 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 document moved from the CCAMP WG to TEAS WG as part of the routing WG changes. The progress of the draft through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS) has been smooth. > > 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? The base (G)MPLS RSVP protocol has been implemented. The extensions defined in this document are compatible with earlier implementations. There have been no public statements on implementation. Three of the four authors are from the same vendor organization while the fourth is from a research institute – implementation for experimental purposes 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 it has progressed through the WG (first CCAMP, then TEAS). 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. The document shepherd has no concerns regarding "experimentation" with the proposed extensions. It is to be noted that some in the WG (first in CCAMP and then in TEAS) have questioned the utility of some/all of the functionality discussed in this draft. This is one of the reasons why "experimental" status is appropriate for this document. > > (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 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00425.html > > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. Yes, an IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2186/). There was no WG discussion regarding the IPR. The disclosure was filed in a timely manner. > (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? Given the “experimental” nature of this document, the overall support for this document has been tepid. However, the consensus is solid among the few who are interested. "strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others not caring about this work one way or the other" 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 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? There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state. However, it is to be noted that there is a normative reference to the companion document - (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/) - [PCE-DOMAIN]. At the time of publishing this “Shepherd Write-Up”, [PCE-DOMAIN] had completed PCE WG Last Call. > (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. As stated above, there is a normative reference to the companion document - [PCE-DOMAIN] (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/). At the time of publishing this “Shepherd Write-up”, [PCE-DOMAIN] was at the same maturity level as this document. > (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. All protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. > (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 |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | The document defines RSVP related formats that are at this juncture being used only for "experimental" purposes. The experimentation is expected to continue until there … The document defines RSVP related formats that are at this juncture being used only for "experimental" purposes. The experimentation is expected to continue until there is sufficient experience gained to determine if this is a function worth standardization. |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-08-17
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Changed document writeup |
2015-08-11
|
02 | Vishnu Beeram | Changed document writeup |
2015-07-19
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-02.txt |
2015-07-14
|
01 | Vishnu Beeram | Changed document writeup |
2015-07-14
|
01 | Vishnu Beeram | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2015-07-06
|
01 | Lou Berger | Ready for proto write up:http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00486.html |
2015-07-06
|
01 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-06-12
|
01 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <vbeeram@juniper.net> |
2015-06-12
|
01 | Lou Berger | Document shepherd changed to Vishnu Pavan Beeram |
2015-05-22
|
01 | Matt Hartley | WG LC issued May 19, closes June 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00439.html |
2015-05-22
|
01 | Matt Hartley | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-05-19
|
01 | Matt Hartley | IPR poll started: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00425.html Response 1 of 4: Dhruv Dhody: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00426.html Response 2 of 4: Ramon Casellas: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00427.html Response 3 of 4: Udayasree Palle: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00432.html … IPR poll started: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00425.html Response 1 of 4: Dhruv Dhody: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00426.html Response 2 of 4: Ramon Casellas: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00427.html Response 3 of 4: Udayasree Palle: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00432.html Response 4 of 4: Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg00433.html IPR poll complete. N.B. IPR was originally disclosed in CCAMP WG in August 2013: see thread beginning at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15117.html |
2015-04-30
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-01.txt |
2014-12-08
|
00 | Lou Berger | This document now replaces draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects instead of None |
2014-12-08
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-00.txt |