Skip to main content

Multicast Control Extensions for the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2014-06-24
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2014-05-19
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2014-05-07
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2014-05-02
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2014-03-13
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2014-03-10
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2014-03-10
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2014-03-06
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2014-03-05
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from AUTH
2014-03-05
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2014-02-27
16 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2014-02-26
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2014-02-26
16 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2014-02-26
16 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2014-02-25
16 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2014-02-25
16 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2014-02-25
16 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2014-02-25
16 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2014-02-25
16 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2014-02-25
16 Ted Lemon IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-02-25
16 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points.
2014-02-25
16 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2014-02-25
16 Naveen Khan New revision available
2014-02-24
15 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-02-24
15 Naveen Khan New revision available
2014-02-06
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2014-02-06
14 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2014-02-06
14 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2014-02-06
14 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

There were some changes agreed from the secdir review [1]
but I'm not sure if they were (all) done. In particular,
point (6) …
[Ballot comment]

There were some changes agreed from the secdir review [1]
but I'm not sure if they were (all) done. In particular,
point (6) about AAA security seems not to be reflected in
the current draft.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04539.html
2014-02-06
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2014-02-05
14 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2014-02-05
14 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I'm impressed with the quality and readability of this document.

It would be interesting to hear the answer to Brian's 2nd point, but …
[Ballot comment]
I'm impressed with the quality and readability of this document.

It would be interesting to hear the answer to Brian's 2nd point, but that interest in no way causes me to object to the publication of this document.
2014-02-05
14 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2014-02-05
14 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2014-02-05
14 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2014-02-05
14 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2014-02-05
14 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2014-02-04
14 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Mehmet during his OPS DIR review:
The document is well-written and thorough concerning the usual requirements for protocol extension specifications. …
[Ballot comment]
As mentioned by Mehmet during his OPS DIR review:
The document is well-written and thorough concerning the usual requirements for protocol extension specifications.

I don't see any real issues from the operations and management pov.

Though, it might be in general interesting for such protocol specifications to have a discussion on, e.g.:
- configuration parameter and useful default values for buffering, timer values, etc.
- protocol scalability and
- whether the protocol extensions increase the traffic load, which can be an issue for multicast especially if dynamic sharing of bandwidth between unicast and multicast video traffic on each access line is done.

The document has 1 nit comment:

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'PIMreg'
2014-02-04
14 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2014-02-03
14 Brian Haberman
[Ballot discuss]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do have questions that I would like to discuss...

1. Am …
[Ballot discuss]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do have questions that I would like to discuss...

1. Am I correct in assuming that the scenarios described in Section 3 are designed around the Home Gateway being a layer-2 bridge?  It appears that this document assumes that the Home Gateway does not fit the Routing Gateway description in RFC 5851.

2. Is it possible for the Home Gateway (or a device behind the HG) to use PIM to signal interest in a multicast group to the AN?

3. In Section 5.12 it appears that the Unicast Source Address can only be a fully-specified unicast address.  However, the group management protocols allow a requester to specify a set of source addresses for SSM flows (see the definition of Multicast Address Records in RFC 3810).  Will this approach send one Multicast-flow TLV per multicast source address (i.e., multiple TLVs with the same multicast group address) ?  The example in section 4.3 does not cover that scenario.
2014-02-03
14 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2014-02-02
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue.
2014-02-01
14 Christer Holmberg Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2014-01-23
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Dacheng Zhang.
2014-01-23
14 Ted Lemon Ballot has been issued
2014-01-23
14 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2014-01-23
14 Ted Lemon Created "Approve" ballot
2014-01-23
14 Ted Lemon Ballot writeup was changed
2014-01-23
14 Ted Lemon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-02-06
2014-01-23
14 Ted Lemon State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2014-01-22
14 (System) State changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call (ends 2014-01-22)
2014-01-21
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-21
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-21
14 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are six actions which it needs to complete.

NOTE: This document requests several specific values. These values will be used if they're still available when the document is approved for publication, but IANA cannot guarantee their availability.

First, in the ANCP Message Types registry in the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) page at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp/

The following registrations will be added to the registry:

Type: 144
Name: Multicast Replication Control
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: 145
Name: Multicast Admission Control
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: 146
Name: Bandwidth Reallocation Request
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: 147
Name: Bandwidth Transfer
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: 148
Name: Delegated Bandwidth Query
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: 149
Name: Multicast Flow Query
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type: 150
Name: Committed Bandwidth Report
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]


Second, regarding registration procedures in the ANCP Result Code Registry also in the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) page at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp/

the lower limit of 0x100 specified by [RFC6320] for assignments (regarding registration procedures) by IETF Consensus will be changed to 0x64.

Third, in the ANCP Result Code Registry also in the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) page at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp/

six new entries will be added as follows:

Code: 0x64
Description: Command error.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x65
Description: Invalid flow address.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x66
Description: Multicast flow does not exist.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x67
Description: Invalid preferred bandwidth amount.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x68
Description: Inconsistent views of delegated bandwidth amount.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x69
Description: Bandwidth request conflict.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the ANCP Command Code registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp/

six new entries will be added as follows:

Command code: 1
Name: Add
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Command code: 2
Name: Delete
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Command code: 3
Name: Delete All
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Command code: 4
Name: Admission Control Reject
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Command code: 5
Name: Conditional Access Reject
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Command code: 6
Name: Admission Control and Conditional Access Reject
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fifth, in the ANCP TLV Type registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp/

fourteen new entries will be added as follows:

Code: 0x0013
Name: Multicast-Service-Profile
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0015
Name: Bandwidth-Allocation
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0016
Name: Bandwidth-Request
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0018
Name: Multicast-Service-Profile-Name
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0019
Name: Multicast-Flow
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0021
Name: List-Action
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0022
Name: Sequence-Number
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0024
Name: White-List-CAC
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0025
Name: MRepCtl-CAC
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0092
Name: Request-Source-IP
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0093
Name: Request-Source-MAC
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0094
Name: Report-Buffering-Time
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0095
Name: Committed-Bandwidth
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Code: 0x0096
Name: Request-Source-Device-Id
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Sixth, in the ANCP Capability Type registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp/

five new entries will be added as follows:

Value: 3
Name: NAS-Initiated Replication
Tech Type: 0
Capability Data: No
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 5
Name: Committed Bandwidth Reporting
Tech Type: 0
Capability Data: No
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 6
Name: Conditional Access With White and Black Lists
Tech Type: 0
Capability Data: No
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 7
Name: Conditional Access With Grey Lists
Tech Type: 0
Capability Data: No
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: 8
Name: Bandwidth Delegation
Tech Type: 0
Capability Data: No
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]


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.
2014-01-09
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-01-09
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2014-01-09
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2014-01-09
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2014-01-09
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang
2014-01-09
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dacheng Zhang
2014-01-08
14 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2014-01-08
14 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:  (Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Access Node Control Protocol WG
(ancp) to consider the following document:
- 'Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP'
  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 2014-01-22. 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 the extensions to the Access Node Control
  Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in
  the Access Node Control Protocol framework document and one
  additional use case described in this document.  These use cases are
  organized into the following ANCP capabilities:

  o  NAS-initiated multicast replication;

  o  conditional access with white and black lists;

  o  conditional access with grey lists;

  o  bandwidth delegation;

  o  committed bandwidth reporting.

  These capabilities may be combined according to the rules given in
  this specification.

  This document updates RFC 6320 by assigning capability type 3 to a
  capability specified in this document and by changing the starting
  point for IANA allocation of result codes determined by IETF
  Consensus from 0x100 to 0x64.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1426/



2014-01-08
14 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-01-08
14 Ted Lemon Last call was requested
2014-01-08
14 Ted Lemon Ballot approval text was generated
2014-01-08
14 Ted Lemon Ballot writeup was generated
2014-01-08
14 Ted Lemon State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2014-01-08
14 Ted Lemon Last call announcement was generated
2014-01-08
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2014-01-08
14 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14.txt
2013-12-23
13 Ted Lemon State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2013-12-10
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2013-12-10
13 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-13.txt
2013-12-09
12 Ted Lemon State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12.txt

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of …
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12.txt

(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?


Standards Track.

This is correctly indicated in the document header.

Standards stack is appropriate to this document. The document specifies protocol extensions to ANCP, defining new TLVs that require the allocation of code points from the ANCP registry.


(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 the extensions to the Access Node Control
  Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in
  the Access Node Control Protocol framework document and one
  additional use case described in this document.  These use cases are
  organized into the following ANCP capabilities:

  o  NAS-initiated multicast replication;

  o  conditional access with white and black lists;

  o  conditional access with grey lists;

  o  bandwidth delegation;

  o  committed bandwidth reporting.

  These capabilities may be combined according to the rules given in
  this specification.


Working Group Summary:

The document specifies a solution to a set of multicast use cases for ANCP. These use cases are largely specified in RFC5851. That framework draft also contains use cases for the base ANCP protocol, which is specified in RFC6320. The multicast solution was split from the other use case solutions that were eventually published in RFC6320 because, at the time, it was felt that the multicast solution needed further development and review.


Document Quality:

There are no concerns with document quality. It is believed that there is at least one implementation of the protocol extensions described in the draft, and it has had significant review and refinement over a number of years.

There are no formal review criteria.


Personnel:

Matthew Bocci is the document shepherd.
Ted Lemon 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.

I have reviewed the document a number of times during its development, including the latest version. The document is well written and i believe 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?

The document has been through two working group last calls in the ANCP working group. It has received significant review and discussion in the WG over a number of years. I am comfortable with the level of review that it has received.

(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.

None required.


(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. I have received IPR statements from all of the authors.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR declaration (#1426) against v03 of the draft. This was declared on an early version of the draft and no issues have been raised during draft development or during last call.

(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?

The document has been through two WG last calls. However, the participation in ANCP has dropped substantially in recent years, the authors of tho document representing a large portion of the currently active participants. Due to the long timescale of the development of the draft, the chairs also asked the WG list for statements of interest in progressing the draft. Sufficient interest was indicated. I believe there is WG consensus on the draft.


(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.)

None indicated.

(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.

ID nits passes. There is one warning about a normative reference to an IANA registry (non-RFC), but this seems to be erroneous.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


There are no formal review criteria.

(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.

There are no downward normative references.


(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.

The document updates RFC6320 in the sense that it makes changes to the allocation policies in some ANCP registries that were originally created by RFC 6320. The updates are to allocate a previously reserved code point (0x03) in the ANCP capability types registry, and to change the starting point for future reservations from the consensus range in the ANCP result codes registry. I am comfortable with these changes as they appear to fix errors in the original establishment of the registries.

(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).

The document requests new allocations from the existing ANCP registries. These are clearly indicated in tabular form in the IANA considerations section of the document, and appear consistent with the requests contained in the body of the document.

There is one request to assign value 3 from the ANCP capability type registry. This value is currently marked as ‘reserved’ rather than ‘unassigned’, based on RFC6320. This value was originally reserved for use with the multicast draft in mind, but it appears this comment is missing from the IANA registry. Given that there are already implementations of the ANCP multicast extensions, I believe it is reasonable for IANA to assign this value as requested in the draft.

Furthermore, there are some assignment requests that do not follow sequentially from the existing start point for assignments in the IANA registries e.g. for the ANCP result code registry. Given the existing implementation base, it would be reasonable to simply allow these assignments, despite slight fragmentation of the existing unassigned code point space. The allocation policies in the IANA result code registry should be updated as requested in the draft.


(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 new IANA registries.


(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.

None required.
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci State Change Notice email list changed to ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions@tools.ietf.org
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci IESG state set to Publication Requested
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2013-11-19
12 Matthew Bocci Changed document writeup
2013-11-18
12 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-12.txt
2013-11-13
11 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-11.txt
2013-11-11
10 Matthew Bocci Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci
2013-11-11
10 Matthew Bocci Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2013-08-21
10 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-10.txt
2013-02-24
09 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-09.txt
2012-10-22
08 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt
2012-04-30
07 Tom Taylor New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-07.txt
2011-12-05
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-06.txt
2011-06-17
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-05.txt
2011-02-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-04.txt
2011-02-06
06 (System) Document has expired
2010-10-14
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-03
2010-08-05
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-03.txt
2010-03-08
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-02.txt
2009-10-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-01.txt
2009-07-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-00.txt