High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Network Element
draft-ietf-forces-ceha-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-02-10
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-01-31
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-01-21
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-01-13
|
10 | Francis Dupont | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2013-12-24
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-12-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2013-12-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2013-12-21
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-12-14
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-12-12
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2013-12-12
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-12-11
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2013-12-11
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-12-11
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-10
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-12-10
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-10
|
10 | Evangelos Haleplidis | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2013-12-10
|
10 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-10.txt |
2013-12-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] This might be part of Sean's discuss in which case I'll clear and it'll be resolved there, but what is meant in the … [Ballot comment] This might be part of Sean's discuss in which case I'll clear and it'll be resolved there, but what is meant in the security considerations where it says that "CEs should use secure communication channels"? Some mail reveals the vendors do proprietary things with various nice names. It might or might not be worth adding a little description about that to the draft. |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] This might be part of Sean's discuss in which case I'll clear and it'll be resolved there, but what is meant in the … [Ballot discuss] This might be part of Sean's discuss in which case I'll clear and it'll be resolved there, but what is meant in the security considerations where it says that "CEs should use secure communication channels"? |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] I think this might be a simple misunderstanding on my part but I'd like to discuss it a bit. It should be … [Ballot discuss] I think this might be a simple misunderstanding on my part but I'd like to discuss it a bit. It should be noted that since the FE is initiating the association with a CE, a CE cannot initiate association with the FE and such message will be dropped. Thus the FE is secured from rogue or malfunctioning CEs. I'm not sure I get to the thus sentence because it assumes that the CE can't be compromised after an association has been established with the FE. You're telling me a CE is never compromised when it's running? In other words, the CE can only be comprised when it's not associated. |
2013-12-05
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-12-04
|
09 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-12-04
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-12-04
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-03
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-12-03
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] 09 addressed the ops-dir review issues. |
2013-12-03
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2013-12-03
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-12-03
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-12-02
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2013-11-30
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2013-11-28
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2013-11-28
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2013-11-27
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-11-27
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-11-26
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-12-05 |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-11-26
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt Title: ForCES Intra-NE High Availability Authors: K. Ogawa, W. M. Wang, E. Haleplidis, and J. Hadi Salim Intended status: Standards Track (1) … Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt Title: ForCES Intra-NE High Availability Authors: K. Ogawa, W. M. Wang, E. Haleplidis, and J. Hadi Salim Intended status: Standards Track (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? Yes, this document is a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard). The title page of the draft reflects the RFC type. The choice of standards track is a WG mandate based on previous charter. (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: This draft discusses Control Element High Availability (CE HA) within a ForCES Network Element. Architecture, protocol, and message exchange (sequence) for hot and cold standby of ForCES control element are discussed. Since the HA parameterization in an FE is driven by configuring the FE Protocol Object (FEPO) LFB, new validated (against the schema defined in RFC5812) XML version of FEPO has also been presented. Working Group Summary: Standard WG discussions, nothing controversial. Document Quality: Based on discussions with ForCES mtg. attendees and dialog participants, it appears that there are a few implementations of this draft. The original version (ver. 00) of this draft was published in Oct. 2010 and since then it has undergone updates based on implementation experiences and other discussion. Personnel: Bhumip Khasnabish is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director. (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. Yes, I reviewed this draft thoroughly and gave comments/suggestions on earlier versions. The authors have used my suggestions to update this draft. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No I have no concerns. This draft has gone through sufficient number of reviews and implementation cycles/refinements. (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, not at this point in time or for this version. (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. None. (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? The shepherd has polled the authors of this draft. There are no IPR issues disclosed or known for the materials presented in this draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPR issues related to this draft. (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? Yes, the WG consensus is strong. (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 one has threatened an appeal or indicated any extreme discontent on this draft. (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. All nits were fixed in -08, but one new simple one crept in. It is only a reference in the Abstract and the RFC Editor will fix it easily. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document has an IANA considerations section that is appropriately filled out that change a core LFB (FEPO). YES, it does require review by the ForCES IANA experts (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, however, update(s) may be required after the ID nits check based fixes are done. (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 (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. The publication of this drat will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). Yes, there are impacts due to the existence of and configuration of the new FE Protocol Object (FEPO) Logical Functional Block (LFB). (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. ForCES IANA expert review is required for the new registries that are described in #17 above. (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. The XML definitions have been vetted by various XML validators against the ForCES model schema. The XML defined in the document has also been verified by implementations about which the Document Shepherd has been made aware of. |
2013-11-20
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-11-20
|
09 | Evangelos Haleplidis | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2013-11-20
|
09 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-09.txt |
2013-11-11
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Revision needed to address IANA last call comments |
2013-11-11
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-11-10
|
08 | Francis Dupont | Request for Early review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
2013-11-06
|
08 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2013-11-06) |
2013-10-28
|
08 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA has a question about one of the IANA actions requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers subregistry of the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/ A new column, called LFB version, is added to the table after the LFB Class Name. The table now reads as follows: +----------------+---------+-----------+---------------+------------+ | LFB Class | LFB | LFB | Description | Reference | | Identifier | Class | Version | | | | | Name | | | | +----------------+---------+-----------+---------------+------------+ The registration rules for the existing registry remain the same except that new entries must provide the LFB version as a string. All current entries in the Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers subregistry are assigned a value of 1.0. Second, also in the Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers subregistry of the Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/ a new entry is added to this registry as follows: +--------------+------------+---------+-----------------+---------------+ | LFB Class | LFB Class | LFB | Description | Reference | | Identifier | Name | Version | | | +--------------+------------+---------+-----------------+---------------+ | 2 | FE | 1.1 | Defines | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | Protocol | | parameters for | | | | Object | | the ForCES | | | | | | protocol | | | | | | operation | | +--------------+------------+---------+-----------------+---------------+ IANA Question --> Should the LFB 1.0 entry for the FE Protocol Object remain in the registry, or is this a replacement for the version 1.0 LFB? If both entries are to remain with the same Class Name, should they appear in sequence in the registry? IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2013-10-28
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-24
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier |
2013-10-24
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier |
2013-10-17
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-10-17
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Early review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (ForCES Intra-NE High Availability) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (ForCES Intra-NE High Availability) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Forwarding and Control Element Separation WG (forces) to consider the following document: - 'ForCES Intra-NE High Availability' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-06 (the last call period has been extended by one week to allow additional time as people prepare for IETF-88). 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 discusses Control Element High Availability within a ForCES Network Element. Additionally this document updates [RFC5810] by providing new normative text for the Cold-Standby High availability mechanism. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-forces-ceha/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-forces-ceha/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-10-16
|
08 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-10-14
|
08 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08.txt |
2013-07-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | AD Review ========= Hi, I have done my AD review of your document and see nothing major to hold it back, but there are a … AD Review ========= Hi, I have done my AD review of your document and see nothing major to hold it back, but there are a large number of nits and a few petty questions. We have a responsibility to send the I-D to IETF last call in the best possible shape so that it gets a good review. Therefore, I have put the I-D into "Revised I-D Needed" state and will issue IETF last call when I see a new revision. Thanks for the work, Adrian === Section 1 Need to fix the 2119 boilerplate to include a reference to [RFC2119] --- Section 1 OLD The following definitions are taken from [RFC3654]and [RFC3746]: NEW The following definitions are taken from [RFC3654] and [RFC3746]. They are repeated here for convenience, but the normative definitions are found in the referenced RFCs. END --- Section 1 o ForCES Protocol -- The protocol used at the Fp reference point in the ForCES Framework in [RFC3746]. You need to explain what "Fp" is. --- Section 1 o ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL) -- A layer in the ForCES architecture that embodies the ForCES protocol and the state transfer mechanisms as defined in [RFC5810]. How can this definition come from 3654 or 3746 when it has a reference to 5810? --- Figure 1 Maybe more normal to use "CEn" rather than "CEN" --- Section 2 The master CE controls the FEs via the ForCES protocol operating in the Fp interface. s/in/on/ --- Section 3 To achieve CE High Availability (HA), FEs and CEs MUST inter-operate per [RFC5810] definition which is repeated for contextual reasons in Section 3.1. While you are repeating some of the material from 5810, you are also restating some of it in new words, and adding text. This gives a real problem with determining where the normative definition sits. We have to fix this! Can you determine which sections are informational for this document and which contain new text? Possibly the whole of Section 3 is just informational. If this is the case you can replace the text quoted above with the following: To achieve CE High Availability (HA), FEs and CEs MUST inter-operate per [RFC5810]. The normative description of cold standby for CE HA is provided in [RFC5810]. This section provides a more wordy description of the procedures and is purely informational. In the event of any discrepancies between this text and that in RFC 5810, the text in RFC 5810 takes precedence. --- Figure 2 Will it be obvious to the reader of this document what is meant by "Asso Estb,Caps exchg" --- Section 3.1.1 "CEID" is used without expansion. Although sometimes I find "CE ID" for example in 3.1.2. --- Section 3.1.1 has The FE connects to the CE specified on FEPO CEID component. If it fails to connect to the defined CE, it moves it to the bottom of table BackupCEs and sets its CEID component to be the first CE retrieved from table BackupCEs. This is not a problem, but is unusual. In many redundancy cases, the primary object remains the favorite even when it has failed so that when there is a restoration opportunity (such as a failure of the new primary) it will resume its position as primary. The question here is perhaps whether there is any distinction between CEs except their role as primary or backup. --- Figure 3 has "CEFTI" without explanation. --- Section 3.1.1 has If the FE's FEPO CE Failover Policy is configured to mode 1, it indicates that the FE will run in HA restart recovery. In such a case, the FE transitions to the Not Associated state and the CEFTI timer [RFC5810] is started. The FE MAY continue to forward packets during this state. This use of "MAY" implies to me that it is at least as common that the FE does not forward packets in this state. Is that the intention? --- Section 3.1.1 "HB" is used without expansion. --- Section 4.2 "CEHB" and "FEHB" are used without expansion --- Need to fix the line-length problems in Figure 4 --- Figure 5 implies that the association with the primary CE is the first association formed. Is this a requirement? --- Section 5 needs to give clear and unambiguous instructions to the IANA. It seems that the text in Section 5 is currently a placeholder for the correct text. The shepherd write-up notes the need for this section to be reviewed by "ForCES IANA experts". If these people are not to be found in the ForCES working group, then they exist nowhere. So the WG needs to look at this section and work out what it should really say. --- Section 6 is too sparse. The Security Section in RFC 5810 is sound, so that is not the issue. However, in considering HA you are considering a more complex scenario where each CE must have its communications secured with the FE, and each CE must be authenticated to the FE. That needs discussion. Additionally, can the system be disrupted by simulating CE failure or by disrupting CE-FE communications? --- Section 7.2 I think 5812 is used in a normative way. |
2013-07-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-07-23
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Changed document writeup |
2013-07-23
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Changed document writeup |
2013-07-23
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-07-23
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-07-23
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2013-06-26
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-06-26
|
07 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-ogawa-forces-ceha |
2013-06-25
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Changed document writeup |
2013-06-25
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Document shepherd changed to Bhumip Khasnabish |
2013-05-08
|
07 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-07.txt |
2013-02-19
|
06 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-06.txt |
2013-01-17
|
05 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-05.txt |
2012-07-16
|
04 | Evangelos Haleplidis | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-04.txt |
2012-02-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-03.txt |
2011-08-24
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-02.txt |
2011-02-23
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-01.txt |
2010-10-18
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-00.txt |