Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)
draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-03-09
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-12-21
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-12-14
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2015-10-20
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2015-10-14
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to aretana@cisco.com |
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from pim-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-09-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-09-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2015-09-02
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2015-08-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-08-20
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2015-08-17
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-08-13
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-08-13
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-08-13
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-08-13
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-08-12
|
06 | Zhaohui Zhang | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-08-12
|
06 | Zhaohui Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-06.txt |
2015-08-12
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Bill Atwood sent me a great explanation for how IPsec actually works with PIM-SM here. I think adding a version of that to … [Ballot comment] Bill Atwood sent me a great explanation for how IPsec actually works with PIM-SM here. I think adding a version of that to the security considerations text here would be a fine thing, but that's a non-blocking comment, so do add that or not as you see fit. (It was a very clear and easy to follow description of what one needs to setup to get IPsec to work usefully here so I hope you do include a version.) Thanks for bearing with me in the meantime. |
2015-08-12
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] 4601 used IPsec AH for it's MTI security. This removes that and points at 5796 which defines how to use ESP for link … [Ballot discuss] 4601 used IPsec AH for it's MTI security. This removes that and points at 5796 which defines how to use ESP for link local addresses and with manual keying. That raises one technical question and two ickky process questions. The ickky process questions are probably best discussed between the IESG at least initially in case we don't need to bother the authors/wg with 'em. (1) I'd like to check that 5796 defines a way in which one can secure all PIM messages that are defined here in 4601bis (should one want to do that). If there are cases where PIM-SM can be used and where there is no well defined security then I think that would be a problem. And I think maybe there are such cases. Am I wrong? If not, then how does one secure those? - My review was based on the diff vs 4601 [1] and the abstract of 5796 which seems fairly clear though. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc4601&url2=draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-05.txt |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot discuss text updated for Stephen Farrell |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's discuss points. Thanks. |
2015-05-28
|
05 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-05-27
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-05-27
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] 4601 used IPsec AH for it's MTI security. This removes that and points at 5796 which defines how to use ESP for link … [Ballot discuss] 4601 used IPsec AH for it's MTI security. This removes that and points at 5796 which defines how to use ESP for link local addresses and with manual keying. That raises one technical question and two ickky process questions. The ickky process questions are probably best discussed between the IESG at least initially in case we don't need to bother the authors/wg with 'em. (1) I'd like to check that 5796 defines a way in which one can secure all PIM messages that are defined here in 4601bis (should one want to do that). If there are cases where PIM-SM can be used and where there is no well defined security then I think that would be a problem. And I think maybe there are such cases. Am I wrong? If not, then how does one secure those? (2) Is it ok for an IS to depend on a PS for it's MTI security mechanism? (I think it is, but yeah, someone else might not.) (3) Is it ok for an IS to not conform to BCP107? (I think it depends, and I'm not sure in this case.) - My review was based on the diff vs 4601 [1] and the abstract of 5796 which seems fairly clear though. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc4601&url2=draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-05.txt |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-05-26
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-05-19
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Just a little bit of history in case this draft looks familiar to some of you. This document was on the telechat agenda … [Ballot comment] Just a little bit of history in case this draft looks familiar to some of you. This document was on the telechat agenda for 2015-03-12, but it was removed before the call to resolve a DISCUSS from Brian Haberman. That issue has now been resolved. |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot comment text updated for Alvaro Retana |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was changed |
2015-05-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-05-28 |
2015-05-18
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working through the authentication issue with me. |
2015-05-18
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2015-05-17
|
05 | Lianshu Zheng | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-05-17
|
05 | Lianshu Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-05.txt |
2015-04-08
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Telechat review by GENART No Response. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2015-04-08
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2015-03-25
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2015-03-21
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-03-19
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Alia Atlas | The question of whether the AH security option actually has interoperable implementations has been raised. This wasn't included in the survey and is relevant since … The question of whether the AH security option actually has interoperable implementations has been raised. This wasn't included in the survey and is relevant since AH is no longer recommended - having been updated by RFC 5796. There are multiple implementations of RFC 5796 (according to Bill Atwood) - but it is lacking in deployment experience and, perhaps, implementation in many implementations. |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot discuss] Thank you for doing this work! I will be balloting YES on this document, but I have a point that needs to be … [Ballot discuss] Thank you for doing this work! I will be balloting YES on this document, but I have a point that needs to be worked out. For the time being, this should be treated as a process issue and there is currently no need for document changes from the authors... Section 6.3 of this document, and RFC 4601, currently says "The IPsec [8] transport mode using the Authentication Header (AH) is the recommended method to prevent the above attacks against PIM." However, RFC 5796, which updates RFC 4601, says "In order to provide authentication of PIM-SM link-local messages, implementations MUST support ESP [RFC4303] and MAY support AH [RFC4302]." The two issues that I think we need to resolve are: 1. Will 4601bis, when it is published as an RFC, inherit the "Updated by: RFC 5796" meta-data so that implementers will know to use the newer guidance provided in 5796? There is a query to the RFC Editor on this point. 2. Should the text in section 6.3 be updated to adopt the recommendation from 5796 rather than maintain the obsolete recommendation for the use of AH? If so, RFC 5796 could be referenced, which would lead to adding 5796 to the downref registry. |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Thank you so much for revising this spec. The number of errata was getting embarrassing and handling that alone makes this a very … [Ballot comment] Thank you so much for revising this spec. The number of errata was getting embarrassing and handling that alone makes this a very worthwhile piece of work. But additionally, this represents a milestone for PIM, an effort that started as Experimental, and which is now widely deployed. --- You continue to list Bill's coordinates and email as they appeared on RFC 4601. Is this intentional, or should you update his coordinates? Even if he wants the credit to still show ATT, an up-to-date email address would be good. --- Please look at replacing the reference to 5996 with a reference to 7296 |
2015-03-09
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2015-03-05
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-03-05
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-03-02
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio |
2015-03-02
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Christopher Inacio |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Telechat date has been changed to 2015-03-12 from 2015-03-05 |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-03-05 |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-02-27
|
04 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-02-27
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-02-24
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-24
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis version 4. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis version 4. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA has one comment/question for one of the actions requested in this draft. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which need to be completed. First, section 5.1 of the current draft indicates that PIM Address Family numbers are to be allocated in the following way: "Values 0 through 127 are designated to have the same meaning as IANA-assigned Address Family Numbers. Values 128 through 250 are designated to be assigned for PIM by the IANA based upon IESG Approval, as defined in RFC 5226. Values 251 through 255 are designated for Private Use, as defined in RFC 5226." IANA believes that the PIM Address Family subregistry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/ accurately reflects the request in section 5.1 of the current draft. Second, section 5.2 of the current draft indicates that PIM Hello Options are to be allocated in the following way: "Values 17 through 65000 are to be assigned by the IANA. Since the space is large, they may be assigned as First Come First Served as defined in RFC 5226. Such assignments are valid for one year and may be renewed. Permanent assignments require a specification as defined in RFC 5226." IANA believes that the PIM-Hello Options subregistry of the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/ accurately reflects the request in section 5.2 of the current draft. Comment/Question: Is the range of values for this space 1-65535? Is value 0 non-existed in this space? Or this draft does not intend to address that? IANA understands that there are no other 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. |
2015-02-23
|
04 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-04.txt |
2015-02-17
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahalingam Mani |
2015-02-17
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mahalingam Mani |
2015-02-15
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-02-15
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-13
|
03 | 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: (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)) to Internet Standard The IESG has received a request from the Protocol Independent Multicast WG (pim) to consider the following document: - 'Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)' as Internet 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 2015-02-27. 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 specifies Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM). PIM-SM is a multicast routing protocol that can use the underlying unicast routing information base or a separate multicast- capable routing information base. It builds unidirectional shared trees rooted at a Rendezvous Point (RP) per group, and optionally creates shortest-path trees per source. This document addresses errata filed against RFC 4601, and removes the optional (*,*,RP) feature that lacks sufficient deployment experience. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested::Revised I-D Needed |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | An updated version correctly specifying that this obsoletes RFC4601 is needed. |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2015-02-13
|
03 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-02-03
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-12-08
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Papadimitriou Dimitri |
2014-12-08
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Papadimitriou Dimitri |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | 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 … 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)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Internet Standard. It has many implementations for many years and has been thoroughly vetted. Much work has occurred over the last two years to address errata. (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 document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM). PIM-SM is a multicast routing protocol that can use the underlying unicast routing information base or a separate multicast- capable routing information base. It builds unidirectional shared trees rooted at a Rendezvous Point (RP) per group, and optionally creates shortest-path trees per source.This document addresses errata filed against RFC 4601, and removes the optional (*,*,RP) feature that lacks sufficient deployment experience. Working Group Summary There was very good feedback on the list over the last year, particularly during the last WGLCs. All comments were addressed to the satisfaction of those commenting. 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? There are several existing implementations of the protocol over the span of many years. Bharat Joshi, most particularly, had many recent comments that were all addressed in final fine tuning of the document. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Mike McBride is the document shepherd and Adrian Farrell is the responsible AD. (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 (and many many others) has reviewed the document over the past few years and particular this final version. It 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? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (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 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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? We have 100% consensus on this document after thorough review. (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 appeals or other discontent. (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. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. thorough WG, Chair, and AD review. (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 it won't change the status of other 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). IANA considerations have been consistent for years. (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. No expert review needed in my humble opinion. (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. thorough wg reviews and idnit checks |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | Document shepherd changed to Mike McBride |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | State Change Notice email list changed to pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis@tools.ietf.org |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | Responsible AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-07-01
|
03 | Mike McBride | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-05-06
|
03 | Zhaohui Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-03.txt |
2013-10-17
|
02 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-02.txt |
2011-10-27
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-01.txt |
2011-09-29
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-00.txt |