Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2005-10-31
|
09 | (System) | This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions |
2003-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2003-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2003-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2003-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2003-11-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-20
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-10-16 by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-17
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-17
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | New Revisions received. AD (Bert) thinks they are now OK. Checking with otehr ADs. |
2003-10-17
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-10-17 from 2003-10-16 |
2003-10-17
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Amy Vezza |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Thomas Narten |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Randy Bush | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for by Randy Bush |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Ned Freed | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Ned Freed |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Jon Peterson |
2003-10-16
|
09 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for by Alex Zinin |
2003-10-15
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Margaret Wasserman |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot comment] Why is draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing Proposed instead of Informational? (It's clear why the other document in the ballot is Proposed.) |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for by Steve Bellovin |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of … [Ballot comment] Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of the new data about Shared Risk Link Groups, protection information, and interface switching. About the only I thing that seemed to relate to that was the "if you're looking for diverse paths, choose links with different SRLGs" statement. I then decided it was probably in the OSPF doc, but it doesn't seem to be in OSPF-gmpls-extensions either. Is there some other doc that talks about how implementors should consider the interactions among these pieces of data? For example, what should you do when one link is listed as protected, but in the same SRLG, where another link is a different SRLG but unprotected? Is deterministic behavior on this not something which is important? |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of … [Ballot comment] Reading through gmpls-routing-08, I kept feeling like something was missing--essentially the description of how the routing decisions get made in the presence of the new data about Shared Risk Link Groups, protection information, and interface switching. About the only I thing that seemed to relate to that was the "if you're looking for diverse paths, choose links with different SRLGs" statement. I then decided it was probably in the OSPF doc, but it doesn't seem to be in OSPF-gmpls-extensions either. Is there some other doc that talks about how implementors should consider the interactions among these pieces of data? For example, what should you do when one link is listed as protected, but in the same SRLG, where another link is a different SRLG but unprotected? Is deterministic behavior on this not something which is important? |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for by Ted Hardie |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08: The Abstract is very weak. I propose: This document specifies routing extensions in support … [Ballot comment] COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08: The Abstract is very weak. I propose: This document specifies routing extensions in support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document enhances the routing extensions required to support MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE). Move the single paragraph in section 1 to the top of section 2. This will turn section 2 into a very good introduction. Spell out first use of SPF. COMMENT on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11: Move the single paragraph in section 1 to the top of section 2. This will turn section 2 into a very good introduction. |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] DISCUSS on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-11: Need a normative reference for IEEE floating point format. |
2003-10-14
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for by Russ Housley |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-10-16 by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Note]: 'Now on IESG agenda' added by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-10-08 from 2003-10-07 |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Ballot has been issued by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-08
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Created "Approve" ballot |
2003-10-08
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2003-10-08
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2003-10-08
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2003-10-08
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-08.txt |
2003-10-07
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup::Point Raised - writeup needed by Bert Wijnen |
2003-10-07
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | AD (Bert) is Checking with WG chairs: -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: dinsdag 7 oktober 2003 15:51 To: Kireeti Kompella; Ronald P. Bonica; … AD (Bert) is Checking with WG chairs: -----Original Message----- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Sent: dinsdag 7 oktober 2003 15:51 To: Kireeti Kompella; Ronald P. Bonica; Cc: Wijnen, Bert; Alex Zinin Subject: RE: Publication request Inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] > Sent: vrijdag 3 oktober 2003 15:01 > To: Wijnen, Bert; Alex Zinin > Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; Kireeti Kompella; iesg-secretary@ietf.org > Subject: Publication request > > > Hi, > > The following two documents: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-07.txt I get: $ /bin/checkpage.awk and > draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-10.txt Mmmm.. I see a revision 9 (december 2002), but not 10. Should I wait for 10 ? I also wonder: - Why do you not list I-Ds by name in ref section. It now makes it more difficult for all of us to find proper couments that are being referenced > have been through the CCAMP WG Last Call and the IETF Last Call, > and the suggested changes incorporated. > I believe you also pointed out to OSPF WG that last call was going on right? So that would make me assume OSPF folk have reviewed as well. Did any other WGs or RTG area review it as well? > Please consider them for publication as a box set (they > cross-reference each other normatively). > Will do. Pls answer above and tell me if you want to do a quick rev first or if you rather see me put them on IESG agenda. Alex? Bert > Kireeti. > |
2003-10-07
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Change Notice email list have been change to , , from , |
2003-10-07
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-10-07 from 2003-09-22 |
2003-10-03
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-07.txt |
2003-09-22
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Bert is pinging the WG chairs for the umptieth time to heard where we are with these documents |
2003-09-22
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-09-22 from 2003-04-02 |
2003-07-02
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-06.txt |
2003-05-13
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Bert is pinging WG chairs for status update |
2003-04-02
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Several comments were received during IETF Last Call. The WG chairs have been asked to check and discuss with authors and or WG to come … Several comments were received during IETF Last Call. The WG chairs have been asked to check and discuss with authors and or WG to come up with answers. If needed, new revisions should be made. AD checked with authors/chairs on April 2nd March 11th Feb 28th |
2003-04-02
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-04-02 from 2003-02-24 |
2003-04-02
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup :: Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for Writeup by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-02-27
|
09 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by Coya, Steve |
2003-02-10
|
09 | Stephen Coya | Status date has been changed to 2003-02-24 from 2003-02-10 |
2003-02-10
|
09 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Coya, Steve |
2003-02-10
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation :: External Party by Wijnen, Bert |
2003-02-10
|
09 | (System) | Last call sent |
2003-01-14
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Checking with WG chairs on result of Last Call on OSPF mailing list, and checking on status of all the work-in-progress documents that are listed … Checking with WG chairs on result of Last Call on OSPF mailing list, and checking on status of all the work-in-progress documents that are listed as normative references. |
2003-01-14
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Status date has been changed to 2003-01-14 from 2002-09-30 |
2002-10-01
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | Kireeti (CCAMP WG co-chair) posted a sort of WG Last Call to the OSPF mailing list on Sept 30th. Finishes on October 14th. |
2002-10-01
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | by bwijnen |
2002-10-01
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation -- External Party from AD Evaluation -- Point Raised - writeup needed by bwijnen |
2002-09-26
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | On 29 August 2002, I asked the WG chairs: > And how far have these documents been discussed in > the RTG (OSPF) WGs? At … On 29 August 2002, I asked the WG chairs: > And how far have these documents been discussed in > the RTG (OSPF) WGs? At least the relevant RTG WGs > should have been made aware of these docs being in > WG Last Call, or so I think. > Sofar I have not received an answer and today I asked again. |
2002-09-26
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | responsible has been changed to Responsible AD from Bert |
2002-09-26
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | State Changes to AD Evaluation -- Point Raised from Pre AD Evaluation by bwijnen |
2002-08-29
|
09 | Stephen Coya | Draft Added by scoya |
2002-08-28
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt |
2002-04-22
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-04.txt |
2002-03-27
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-03.txt |
2002-02-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt |
2001-11-29
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt |
2001-09-05
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt |