Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) Extended Circuit Status Values
draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
2009-07-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-07-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-07-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-07-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-07-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-07-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-07-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-07-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2009-07-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-07-17
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2009-07-17
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2009-07-17
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
2009-07-12
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2009-07-12
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-05.txt |
2009-07-03
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-07-02 |
2009-07-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-07-02
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: ' Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com> is the WG shepherd for this document. ' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-07-02
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-07-02
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] In section 2 the final semantics of the N bit is now unclear! You say... "This document deprecates this bit as it … [Ballot discuss] In section 2 the final semantics of the N bit is now unclear! You say... "This document deprecates this bit as it is of little or no use" But you also define the meaning of the bit, and say that it is OPTIONAL to send and only "SHOULD be ignored" implying that it "MAY be processed for logging". These explanations are unclear and contradictory. You need to focus on - new implementations - legacy implementations o A legacy implementation will always set the N bit as defined in 3931. o A legacy implementation will always read meaning into the N bit although it is possible that no implementation does anything except to log it. o A new implementation must provide some value in this bit (no bit is actually optional to send!). What value MUST it supply? o A new implementation presumably MUST NOT examine the N bit. Further down the same section you imply that the new implementations should send N=0. The table after the figure is a little confused as it shows the N bit, although the figure does not. I think you should show 'N' in the figure, and in the table you should show... (N) 14 0x0002 Reserved [use deprecated] This should also be reflected in Section 6 |
2009-07-02
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-07-01
|
05 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-07-01
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-07-01
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 4719, paragraph 13: > Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for s/more granular/finer-grained/ (right?) Section 2., paragraph … [Ballot comment] Section 4719, paragraph 13: > Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for s/more granular/finer-grained/ (right?) Section 2., paragraph 9: > (both local attachment circuit and local PSN-facing pseudowire) has Please expand acronyms on first use (PSN, etc.) Section 2., paragraph 11: > This document deprecates this > bit as it is of little or no use, hence this bit SHOULD be ignored on > receipt and is OPTIONAL to send. For reference, see Section 3.4 of s/send/set/ (it's difficult to not send the bit...) Section 2., paragraph 15: > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Reserved |S|E|I|T|R|0|A| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ s/0/N/ (it's still permitted to set it to 1 according to the text, so making it 0 in the picture is inaccurate, I think) |
2009-07-01
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-30
|
05 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-06-30
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] The Security Considerations section consists of one sentence: No additional security considerations exist with extending this attribute. I suspect this is … [Ballot discuss] The Security Considerations section consists of one sentence: No additional security considerations exist with extending this attribute. I suspect this is true, but it is not helpful to the readers. Please provide references to the security considerations that have already been documented. |
2009-06-30
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-06-30
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-06-30
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | State Change Notice email list have been change to l2tpext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions@tools.ietf.org, igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com from l2tpext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions@tools.ietf.org |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-07-02 by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-19
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Note]: ' Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com> is the WG shepherd for this document. ' added by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-16
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-06-15
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the 'Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"' registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters sub-registry … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the 'Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"' registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters sub-registry "Circuit Status Bits" The whole sub-registry will be: Circuit Status Bits Reference: [RFC3931] Registration Procedures: IETF Consensus Note: The Circuit Status field is a 16 bit mask, with the 7 high order bits assigned. Bit 9 - S (Standby) bit [RFC-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04] Bit 10 - E (Local PSN-facing PW (egress) Tx Fault) bit [RFC-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04] Bit 11 - I (Local PSN-facing PW (ingress) Rx Fault) bit [RFC-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04] Bit 12 - T (Local AC (egress) Tx Fault) bit [RFC-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04] Bit 13 - R (Local AC (ingress) Rx Fault) bit [RFC-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04] Bit 14 - N (New) bit (deprecated) [RFC-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04] Bit 15 - A (Active) bit [RFC3931] |
2009-06-05
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2009-06-05
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2009-06-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-06-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-06-02
|
05 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-02
|
05 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ralph Droms |
2009-06-02
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-06-02
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-06-02
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-05-29
|
05 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ralph Droms |
2009-04-23
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Yes. Ignacio Goyret will be the WG Document Shepherd for this document. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been reviewed in the l2tpext WG and the pwe3 WG (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext/current/msg01202.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10354.html). Further detailed review was performed by Ignacio Goyret. There are no concerns about the extent of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? We don't believe there is any need for additional review from other areas since the document extends a parameter that only affects L2TP version 3. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? All concerns raised in the mailing list have been addressed. To my knowledge, there aren't any outstanding issues. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? To my knowledge, no IPR disclosures have been filed. (1.e) 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? There have been no dissenting voices during review and/or WGLC. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The document satisfies all ID nits. Note: The idnits tool mentions an "unresolved reference" because the string "[PSN]" is used in a figure. This will be resolved during AUTH48. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? 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 strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? References have been split into normative and informative. All normative references are already published RFCs. Some of the informative references are drafts. This draft is referenced (informative) by draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-10.txt using its old name (draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions). The authors have been contacted to update the reference on their next revision. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? Yes. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There are no sections on this document using any formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. * Technical Summary This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status" Attribute Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for circuits and pseudowires. It also generalizes the "Active" bit and deprecates the use of the "New" bit in the "Circuit Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349, RFC4454, RFC4591, and RFC4719. * Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. * Document Quality The l2tpext WG has reviewed this document. All concerns raised during review and last call have been addressed. Ignacio Goyret is the WG shepherd for this document. |
2009-04-23
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-04-13
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-04.txt |
2009-03-23
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-03.txt |
2008-12-05
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-02.txt |
2008-11-19
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-01.txt |
2008-10-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-00.txt |