IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines
draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-02-06
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-01-30
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-01-23
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-12-22
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-12-21
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-12-21
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-12-21
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-12-19
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-12-19
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-12-19
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-12-19
|
07 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-12-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-12-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-12-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-12-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-12-15
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2016-12-15
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Rick Casarez provided the opsdir review |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-12-14
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-12-13
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-12-13
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-12-13
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-12-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-13
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Rick Casarez. |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | 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? This document is requesting classification as a Proposed Standard. This type is appropriate given the portions of the document that update RFCs 4944 and 6282 and define how the Dispatch Byte functions within the 6lowpan protocol. (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 RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header. The value of the ESC byte was updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in RFC6282 or in RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document. Working Group Summary The genesis of this document comes from interactions with other SDOs using the 6lowpan technologies. Support for this document was strong given the wide and varied uses of RFCs 4944 and 6282. Document Quality No additional special reviews are needed. Feedback from ITU-T indicates that the creation of this IANA registry will address their concerns. Personnel Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd Suresh Krishnan 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. The document shepherd performed several in-depth reviews of the draft during its formulation and after its passage of WGLC. Part of the review entailed mapping the requested IANA registry entries to the ITU-T specifications using those entries to ensure complete coverage. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 special reviews needed. (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 to note. (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? A vast majority of the engaged WG participants strongly support this document. There have been no objections raised to its publication. (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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits or gnats found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (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. This document updates two RFCs (4944 and 6282). Both are duly noted in the title page header and in the Abstract. (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). This document is essentially one big IANA Considerations. It creates a new registry under the "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters" protocol entry within the IANA tree. The new registry specification appears complete and matches the textual discussion within the body of the document. (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. The IANA Considerations section provides guidance for the designated experts as the new registry is labeled as "Specification Required". The WG chairs will communicate the identified experts to the shepherding AD. (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. N/A. |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot has been issued |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-12-12
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-12-12
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of [draft-string]. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of [draft-string]. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. A new registry is to be created called the 'ESC Extension Type' registry. The new registry is to be a subregistry of the IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/ The new registry will be maintained through Specification Required as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ | 0 | Reserved for future use | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &| | | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 | | | | | | 32-254| Unassigned | [ RFC-to-be ] | | |(Reserved for future IANA | | | | Assignment-- Spec Required) | | | | | | | 255 | Reserved for future use | [ RFC-to-be ] | +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Russ Housley | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Gabriel Montenegro | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07.txt |
2016-12-08
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-08
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Samita Chakrabarti" , 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Gabriel Montenegro" , "james woodyatt" , "Ralph Droms" |
2016-12-08
|
07 | Gabriel Montenegro | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-08
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-12-05
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-12-15 |
2016-12-01
|
06 | Russ Housley | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. |
2016-11-24
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
2016-11-24
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
2016-11-23
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-11-23
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-11-17
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-11-17
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: brian@innovationslab.net, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry@ietf.org, "Brian Haberman" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: brian@innovationslab.net, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry@ietf.org, "Brian Haberman" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, 6lo@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes WG (6lo) to consider the following document: - '6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines' 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 2016-12-08. 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 RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header. The value of the ESC byte was updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in RFC6282 or in RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-11-16
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Gabriel Montenegro | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06.txt |
2016-11-16
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-11-16
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Samita Chakrabarti" , "Ralph Droms" , "Gabriel Montenegro" , "james woodyatt" , 6lo-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-11-16
|
06 | Gabriel Montenegro | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-16
|
05 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | 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? This document is requesting classification as a Proposed Standard. This type is appropriate given the portions of the document that update RFCs 4944 and 6282 and define how the Dispatch Byte functions within the 6lowpan protocol. (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 RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header. The value of the ESC byte was updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in RFC6282 or in RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document. Working Group Summary The genesis of this document comes from interactions with other SDOs using the 6lowpan technologies. Support for this document was strong given the wide and varied uses of RFCs 4944 and 6282. Document Quality No additional special reviews are needed. Feedback from ITU-T indicates that the creation of this IANA registry will address their concerns. Personnel Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd Suresh Krishnan 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. The document shepherd performed several in-depth reviews of the draft during its formulation and after its passage of WGLC. Part of the review entailed mapping the requested IANA registry entries to the ITU-T specifications using those entries to ensure complete coverage. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. (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 special reviews needed. (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 to note. (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? A vast majority of the engaged WG participants strongly support this document. There have been no objections raised to its publication. (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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits or gnats found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (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. This document updates two RFCs (4944 and 6282). Both are duly noted in the title page header and in the Abstract. (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). This document is essentially one big IANA Considerations. It creates a new registry under the "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters" protocol entry within the IANA tree. The new registry specification appears complete and matches the textual discussion within the body of the document. (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. The IANA Considerations section provides guidance for the designated experts as the new registry is labeled as "Specification Required". The WG chairs will communicate the identified experts to the shepherding AD. (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. N/A. |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Gabriel Montenegro | Notification list changed to "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> from "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com>, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Changed document writeup |
2016-09-27
|
05 | Brian Haberman | Changed document writeup |
2016-09-16
|
05 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-05.txt |
2016-09-16
|
05 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version approved |
2016-09-16
|
05 | Samita Chakrabarti | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, "Gabriel Montenegro" , "james woodyatt" , "Ralph Droms" , "Samita Chakrabarti" |
2016-09-16
|
05 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-08
|
04 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-04.txt |
2016-05-23
|
03 | Samita Chakrabarti | Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com>, "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net> from "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com> |
2016-05-23
|
03 | Samita Chakrabarti | Document shepherd changed to Brian Haberman |
2016-05-18
|
03 | Samita Chakrabarti | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-03.txt |
2016-03-31
|
02 | Samita Chakrabarti | Notification list changed to "Jonathan Hui" <jonhui@nestlabs.com> |
2016-03-31
|
02 | Samita Chakrabarti | Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hui |
2016-03-21
|
02 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-02.txt |
2016-02-25
|
01 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-01.txt |
2016-02-04
|
00 | Samita Chakrabarti | New version available: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-00.txt |