RFC 5812

Document history

Date	Version	By	Text
2012-08-22	16	(System)	post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Chris Newman
2010-03-20	16	Cindy Morgan	State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-20	16	Cindy Morgan	[Note]: 'RFC 5812' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-18	16	(System)	RFC published
2008-10-17	16	(System)	IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2008-10-17	16	(System)	IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2008-10-17	16	(System)	IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-10-17	16	(System)	IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-10-13	16	Amy Vezza	State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2008-10-13	16	(System)	IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-10-13	16	Amy Vezza	IESG has approved and state has been changed to 'Approved-Announcement sent' by Amy Vezza.
2008-10-13	16	Amy Vezza	Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-10-10	16	Ross Callon	State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Ross Callon
2008-10-09	16	Amy Vezza	State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-10-09	16	Cullen Jennings	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-10-09	16	Mark Townsley	[Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley
2008-10-09	16	Mark Townsley	[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-10-09	16	Mark Townsley	[Ballot comment] I found this document to be at some times very specific (section 9.2 laying IANA considerations for Class Names and IDs) and ... [show all] [Ballot comment] I found this document to be at some times very specific (section 9.2 laying IANA considerations for Class Names and IDs) and at other times very abstract. For example when introducing the ID space referred to here in section 3 it is identified as "global within the Network Element and may be issued by IANA." If the ID is global only within the NE, why do they need to be issued by IANA? And, if they do need to be unique outside the NE, why only a "may" here? The document itself is a nice object-oriented model of how someone might conceptualize a router design. As such, it is well-written and does as good a job as anyone might be asked to do. However, it is the same level of abstraction that helps to make this document possible, which also makes me wonder if we will ever see truly independent and interoperable models, protocols, hardware, FEs, LFBs, etc. for any of this (or enough to matter beyond an academic exercise). I see no reason to hold up this document in particular at this stage, but in general I believe the IESG needs to take a hard look at the work in the WG and question whether it will be able to achieve its goals.
2008-10-09	16	Jari Arkko	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-10-09	16	Jon Peterson	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-10-08	16	David Ward	[Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-10-08	16	Tim Polk	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-10-08	16	Tim Polk	[Ballot comment] Section 12. s/[2]/[5]/ (The security considerations includes a reference that is inconsistent with the surrounding text. The text refers to RFC ... [show all] [Ballot comment] Section 12. s/[2]/[5]/ (The security considerations includes a reference that is inconsistent with the surrounding text. The text refers to RFC 3746, which is reference [5] but [2] is the reference that is included in the text. )
2008-10-07	16	Dan Romascanu	[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-10-07	16	Chris Newman	[Ballot Position Update] Position for Chris Newman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Chris Newman
2008-10-07	16	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-16 (diff from -15)
2008-10-07	15	(System)	State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system
2008-09-26	15	(System)	Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25
2008-09-24	15	Mark Townsley	State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Mark Townsley
2008-09-24	15	Chris Newman	[Ballot discuss] I don't believe this document adequately addresses the requirements in BCP 70. Since it seems just about _every_ XML schema coming through ... [show all] [Ballot discuss] I don't believe this document adequately addresses the requirements in BCP 70. Since it seems just about _every_ XML schema coming through the IESG gets the wrong, let me try a simple explanation: XML is extensible by default. XML schema is non-extensible by default. If you use XML schema, your protocol/model/format is almost certainly not extensible by default and even if you've done the extra work to allow extensibility within the schema, extensions tend to be order sensitive and an ordering model for them may be necessary. RelaxNG shares the same problems, except that the RelaxNG interleave pattern does not suffer from the order sensitivity problem and thus can support multiple independent extensions. Getting to this specific document, the following statement in section 4: --- Each of the library documents MUST conform to the schema presented in this section. --- creates a normative dependency on XML schema (which is not properly documented in the references), and is equivalent to the statement "library documents are not extensible". I want to confirm the authors and WG have considered this issue and this is the intention. The same issue may apply to other uses of schema in the document. This is also missing a normative reference to STD 63 (UTF-8).
2008-09-24	15	Chris Newman	[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-09-24	15	Ron Bonica	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-09-24	15	Dan Romascanu	[Ballot comment] The document does not include the standard phrase about keywords required by RFC 2119. The replacement phrase in the introduction does not mention ... [show all] [Ballot comment] The document does not include the standard phrase about keywords required by RFC 2119. The replacement phrase in the introduction does not mention for example 'MUST NOT' although there are a number of instances of 'MUST NOT' in the text.
2008-09-24	15	Magnus Westerlund	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-09-23	15	Lars Eggert	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-09-23	15	Pasi Eronen	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-09-19	15	Russ Housley	[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-09-11	15	Ross Callon	[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2008-09-11	15	Ross Callon	Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2008-09-11	15	Ross Callon	Created "Approve" ballot
2008-09-11	15	Ross Callon	Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon
2008-09-11	15	Ross Callon	State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2008-09-11	15	(System)	Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-09-11	15	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-15 (diff from -14)
2008-09-10	14	Ross Callon	State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2008-09-08	14	(System)	State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-09-05	14	Amanda Baber	IANA Last Call comments/questions: IANA has questions: - IANA has no registration for a "forces" or "forces:lfbmodel" namespace, so has no place to put ... [show all] IANA Last Call comments/questions: IANA has questions: - IANA has no registration for a "forces" or "forces:lfbmodel" namespace, so has no place to put the "forces:lfbmodel:1.0" namespace. Do you want to register these other namespaces too? Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignment in the "ns" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html ID URI Registration template Reference ------------------ ----------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------- forces:lfbmodel:1.0 urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0 forces:lfbmodel:1.0 [RFC-forces-model-14] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the following registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD Registry Name: LDF Class Names Range Registration Procedures Notes -------- ------------------------ ------ 3-65535 Standards Track >65535 First Come, First Served Requires stable, publically available document as reference; name must begin with "EXT-" Identifier LFB Class Name Reference Description ---------- ---------------- -------------- ------------- 0 Reserved [RFC-forces-model-14] Reserved 1 FE Object [RFC-forces-model-14] Defines ForCES Forwarding Element information 2 FE Protocol 2 [draft-forces-protocol-11] Defines parameters Object for the ForCES protocol operation We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2008-08-25	14	Amy Vezza	Last call sent
2008-08-25	14	Amy Vezza	State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-08-25	14	Ross Callon	Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon
2008-08-25	14	Ross Callon	Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-08-25	14	Ross Callon	State Changes to Last Call Requested from IESG Evaluation by Ross Callon
2008-08-25	14	(System)	Ballot writeup text was added
2008-08-25	14	(System)	Last call text was added
2008-08-25	14	(System)	Ballot approval text was added
2008-08-25	14	Ross Callon	State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party by Ross Callon
2008-08-25	14	Ross Callon	Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon
2008-08-23	14	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-14 (diff from -13)
2008-08-18	13	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-13 (diff from -12)
2008-07-14	12	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-12 (diff from -11)
2008-04-10	11	Ross Callon	State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2008-04-07	11	Ross Callon	Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested
2008-02-25	11	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-11 (diff from -10)
2008-01-29	10	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-10 (diff from -09)
2007-12-21	09	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-09 (diff from -08)
2007-10-07	08	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-08 (diff from -07)
2007-04-08	07	(System)	Document has expired
2006-10-05	07	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 (diff from -06)
2006-03-07	06	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-06 (diff from -05)
2005-07-21	05	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-05 (diff from -04)
2005-02-23	04	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-04 (diff from -03)
2004-07-19	03	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-03 (diff from -02)
2004-02-16	02	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-02 (diff from -01)
2003-10-06	01	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-01 (diff from -00)
2003-08-11	00	(System)	New version available: draft-ietf-forces-model-00

Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model RFC 5812

Document history

Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model
RFC 5812