• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: ospf

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-01-18 00:25 (System)

RFC published

2012-12-19 06:45 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-12-18 11:50 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

2012-12-18 10:57 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-12-18 10:57 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-12-18 10:57 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-12-18 10:56 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-12-18 10:56 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2012-12-18 10:55 Amy Vezza

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-12-17 09:49 Alvaro Retana

New revision available

2012-12-14 06:07 Stewart Bryant

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-12-04 07:57 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing the majority of my Discuss points and Comments.

One issue remains that I have moved from the Discuss to this Comment:
I really think that the use of RFC 2119 language in 2.1.2 and subsequent
is inappropriate. In my opinion you are just describing what an
implementation does if it wants to achieve a particular effect. You are
not describing mandatory to implement interoperability behaviors.

2012-12-04 07:57 Adrian Farrel

Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel

2012-12-04 07:57 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing the majority of my Discuss points and Comments.

One issue remains that I have moved from the Discuss to this Comment:
I really think that the use of RFC 2119 language in 2.1.2 and subsequent
is inappropriate. In my opinion you are just describing what an
implementation does if it wants to achieve a particular effect. You are not
describing mandatory to implement interoperability behaviors.

2012-12-04 07:57 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-12-04 07:46 (System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

2012-12-04 07:46 Alvaro Retana

New revision available

2012-08-30 10:55 Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation

2012-08-29 20:25 Wesley Eddy

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy

2012-08-29 14:30 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.