Skip to main content

Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-12-13
21 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2024-12-11
21 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2024-12-11
21 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2024-12-11
21 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-12-11
21 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-12-11
21 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-12-11
21 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-12-11
21 Jenny Bui IESG has approved the document
2024-12-11
21 Jenny Bui Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-12-11
21 Jenny Bui Ballot approval text was generated
2024-12-11
21 Jenny Bui Ballot writeup was changed
2024-12-11
21 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-12-05
21 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2024-12-05
21 John Scudder [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS. The new revision helps my understanding of the spec quite a lot!
2024-12-05
21 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2024-12-04
21 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
I support John's DISCUSS.
2024-12-04
21 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-12-04
21 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-12-04
21 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21.txt
2024-12-04
21 (System) New version approved
2024-12-04
21 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2024-12-04
21 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2024-12-04
20 John Scudder
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for this document. I found it relatively easy to read and understand; I appreciate the effort that must have gone into making …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for this document. I found it relatively easy to read and understand; I appreciate the effort that must have gone into making it so. That being said, I do have one major concern I would like to DISCUSS. I suspect it will be relatively easy to resolve. I also have several comments I hope you'll consider.

## DISCUSS

### SYNC

Throughout the document, you reference SYNC, e.g., in Section 5.3, "Local and SYNC route learning can occur..."

I couldn't find a definition of what you mean by "SYNC route learning" (and similar) anywhere. There are some terms in the terminology section that define "SYNC XXX" but those definitions are not very useful if I don't know what "SYNC" is, and I don't.

If SYNC is a term defined elsewhere in the EVPN document set, please provide a reference. If it's supposed to be obvious to the reader... it wasn't obvious to this reader, and I tried. I think this needs to be addressed for this document to be clear.

As a less important point, why is SYNC capitalized as if it were an acronym (or RFC 2119 keyword)? If it's not an acronym, and if it's not already a term that's well-established in some existing RFC and too late to change, then I implore you to consider revising it to something that is LESS SHOUTY. That aspect of it isn't DISCUSS-worthy but since I was talking about SYNC here anyway I figured it was a good place to mention it.

### Section 6.4, REMOTE SYNC

  Upon receiving a REMOTE SYNC, the corresponding local MAC Mx (if

REMOTE SYNC is capitalized as if it were a specific term the reader is expected to understand. I don't see it defined anywhere. It's not obvious to me.

Also, the same minor point about ALL CAPS applies here.
2024-12-04
20 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
## COMMENT

### Throughout, IP and MAC

Like Éric Vyncke, I find the use of "IP" to mean "IP address" and "MAC" to …
[Ballot comment]
## COMMENT

### Throughout, IP and MAC

Like Éric Vyncke, I find the use of "IP" to mean "IP address" and "MAC" to mean "MAC address" mildly distasteful, and I suggest you consider using the full names throughout. If you don't want to cut a new version to do this, you could request the RFC Editor help you with it.

In a few cases it rises beyond just an aesthetic problem -- in some cases, for example, you use "MAC" to mean "MAC address" and in others, you seem to use it to mean "MAC route". Not using the full name can create ambiguity. A specific example of this is the final bullet of Section 6.8 which talks about "local MAC age-out". My initial assumption was that you were talking about aging out an ARP or ND cache entry, but then you have a sentence that contradicts that assumption. I'm left with the guess that you must mean "MAC route". I hope this helps illustrate that this problem is not only personal preference but impacts clarity.

### Section 2, consider alphabetizing

I see that this section is organized sort-of topically, but overall I think it would be more valuable if alphabetized.

### Section 2, Data Center?

Your definition of "EVPN PE" makes it specific to data centers. As far as I know, EVPN is far from being limited to data centers. Consider rewriting this to generalize.

### Section 2, LAG

Please define LAG. You could do it inline instead of adding a definition, if you want.

### Section 3.3, MC-LAG

Please expand or reference MC-LAG.

### Section 5.2, N+1, or max(N+1, M+1)?

  In such cases, a host-IP move to a different physical server results
  in the IP moving to a new MAC binding.  A new MAC-IP route resulting
  from this move must be advertised with a sequence number higher than
  the previous MAC-IP route for this IP, advertised from the prior
  location.  For example, consider a route Mx-IPx currently advertised
  with sequence number N from PE1.  If IPx moves to a new physical
  server behind PE2 and is associated with MAC Mz, the new local Mz-IPx
  route must be advertised with a sequence number higher than N and the
  previous Mz sequence number M.  This allows PE devices, including
  PE1, PE2, and other remote PE devices, to determine and program the
  most recent MAC binding and reachability for the IP.  PE1, upon
  receiving this new Mz-IPx route with sequence number N+1, would
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  update IPx reachability via PE2 for symmetric IRB and update IPx's
  ARP/NDP binding to Mz for asymmetric IRB, while clearing and
  withdrawing the stale Mx-IPx route with the lower sequence number.

Shouldn't the marked text be "sequence number N+1 or M+1, whichever is greater"?

### Section 8.2.1, SHOULD or MUST?

  A MAC-IP route SHOULD be treated as duplicate if either:

  *  The corresponding MAC route is marked as duplicate via the
      existing detection procedure.

  *  The corresponding IP is marked as duplicate via the extended
      procedure described above.

The SHOULD implies that one of the listed conditions might exist, but it's still OK to *not* treat the route as duplicate. What is an example of a case where it's fine not to treat the route as a dup? Put differently, why isn't this a MUST?

### Section 8.3, intuition

                      duplicate MAC detection procedures specified in
  [RFC7432] can be applied intuitively to IP-only host routes for
  duplicate IP detection.
 
In our specifications, we should never be asking the reader to intuit what the right thing to do is! A perfect specification requires no intuition at all, because it's so precise. So when I saw this, I was concerned.

Maybe what you meant was something like "procedures similar to the duplicate MAC detection procedures specified in [RFC7432] can be applied, with the necessary changes, to IP-only host routes for duplicate IP detection, as follows:"

Is that right? Please reassure me you are not expecting the implementor to go with their gut. :-)

### Section 9, sequence number consumption

Thank you for addressing the increased rate of sequence number consumption. Am I correct that there is no serious concern about sequence number wrap, or the consequences of wrap, either because the underlying EVPN mechanisms deal with it smoothly, or because you have evaluated that sequence wrap is still low-probability?
2024-12-04
20 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-12-04
20 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-12-04
20 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Joseph D. Touch for the TSVART review.

A comment - rather than saying "None" is …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Joseph D. Touch for the TSVART review.

A comment - rather than saying "None" is IANA consideration, can we write - "No IANA actions required" as suggested at https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration ?
2024-12-04
20 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-12-03
20 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-20.txt
2024-12-03
20 (System) New version approved
2024-12-03
20 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2024-12-03
20 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2024-12-03
19 Paul Wouters [Ballot comment]
note all the RFC references are done using the ascii text (eg "[RFC7432]") instead of using proper xml links
2024-12-03
19 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-12-03
19 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document, and to Susan Hares for the OpsDir review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18-opsdir-lc-hares-2024-11-16/

Thanks also for addressing her review comments.

The …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document, and to Susan Hares for the OpsDir review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18-opsdir-lc-hares-2024-11-16/

Thanks also for addressing her review comments.

The Shepherd Writeup (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility/shepherdwriteup/) notes the 6 authors, and the Responsible AD has concurred.
2024-12-03
19 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2024-12-03
19 Deb Cooley
[Ballot comment]

Thank you to Robert Sparks for the secdir review.  It appears that some of his recommendations have been acted on.  I do agree …
[Ballot comment]

Thank you to Robert Sparks for the secdir review.  It appears that some of his recommendations have been acted on.  I do agree that the diagrams
aren't all that useful and could be eliminated without loss of clarity.
2024-12-03
19 Deb Cooley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley
2024-12-02
19 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for quickly addressing my previous DISCUSS points and the other points below.

For archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/j0KECf_TNvyvLHFpgdCT_kA3eD8/

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Number of authors …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for quickly addressing my previous DISCUSS points and the other points below.

For archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/j0KECf_TNvyvLHFpgdCT_kA3eD8/

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Number of authors

The explanation for six authors appears sensible, i.e., let's allow this exception.

### Unicast

Should the document specify that it works only for unicast IP/MAC addresses ? Or is it implicit in EVPN anyway?

### Section 1

Consider using MADINAS drafts / use case as a reference for randomized and changing MAC addresses (while keeping the IP addresses).

In the same vein, consider adding a reference to RFC 8981 (for changing IPv6 addresses).

I.e., this I-D is far more generic than only VM.

I find the use of the term 'moving' weird in this section as the 'move' is not always a physical move (change of PE) but rather a new IP associated to an existing MAC (RFC 8981), or is this 'move' not covered by this document ?

Consider adding references to `MPLS, SRv6, NVO Tunnel*s*` ?

### Section 2

In 2024, I would prefer s/ARP references in this document are equally applicable to ND as well./NDP references in this document are equally applicable to ARP as well./ and having this document only using NDP in the text.

### Section 3.2.2.2

s/all host IPs learned/all host IP addresses learned/

s/A host IP move/A host IP address move/

This oversimplification happens in several places, i.e., I won't mention all of the occurences ;)

### Section 5.1

Like Brian noted in this int-dir review, should the impact of this seq num inheritance on the seq num wrapping be described ?

Section 6 is also silent on this case.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

Suggest to use the "aasvg" for nicer rendering on HTML ;-)

### Section 6.6

s/explcit knowledge/explicit knowledge/
2024-12-02
19 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2024-12-02
19 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-12-02
19 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-19.txt
2024-12-02
19 (System) New version approved
2024-12-02
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2024-12-02
19 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2024-12-02
18 Orie Steele [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele
2024-12-02
18 Jim Guichard
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document. Couple of comments:

Abstract:

I am having trouble phasing the first sentence of the Abstract. The text says: …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document. Couple of comments:

Abstract:

I am having trouble phasing the first sentence of the Abstract. The text says:

  This document specifies extensions to Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Integrated
  Routing and Bridging (IRB) procedures specified in RFC7432 and
  RFC9135 to enhance the mobility mechanisms for EVPN IRB-based
  networks.

Are the extensions for both EVPN and IRB procedures or just IRB procedures. It seems like the latter. If that is the case, then only RFC9135 is relevant and not RFC7432 (which should be removed from the text). In addition, you use both 'EVPN IRB' and 'EVPN-IRB' terms interchangeably so please pick one and use it throughout the document.

Section 2:

  *  Overlay: L3 and L2 Virtual Private Network (VPN) enabled via NVO,
      SRv6, or MPLS service layer encapsulation.

Please provide references and expand acronyms for NVO and SRv6 as neither of these are well-known terms defined here -> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list
2024-12-02
18 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-12-02
18 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one …
[Ballot discuss]
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2022-11-17/ (and it seems that the authors have not yet replied to Brian's review)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric


## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section 1

What about IPv6 NDP in `the IP address is incorporated into the local ARP table` ? The "equivalence" ARP-NDP only appears in section 2.

Just use "in the local NDP/ARP tables" to address this point.
2024-12-02
18 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Number of authors

The explanation for six authors appears sensible, i.e., let's allow this exception.

### Unicast

Should the …
[Ballot comment]

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Number of authors

The explanation for six authors appears sensible, i.e., let's allow this exception.

### Unicast

Should the document specify that it works only for unicast IP/MAC addresses ? Or is it implicit in EVPN anyway?

### Section 1

Consider using MADINAS drafts / use case as a reference for randomized and changing MAC addresses (while keeping the IP addresses).

In the same vein, consider adding a reference to RFC 8981 (for changing IPv6 addresses).

I.e., this I-D is far more generic than only VM.

I find the use of the term 'moving' weird in this section as the 'move' is not always a physical move (change of PE) but rather a new IP associated to an existing MAC (RFC 8981), or is this 'move' not covered by this document ?

Consider adding references to `MPLS, SRv6, NVO Tunnel*s*` ?

### Section 2

In 2024, I would prefer s/ARP references in this document are equally applicable to ND as well./NDP references in this document are equally applicable to ARP as well./ and having this document only using NDP in the text.

### Section 3.2.2.2

s/all host IPs learned/all host IP addresses learned/

s/A host IP move/A host IP address move/

This oversimplification happens in several places, i.e., I won't mention all of the occurences ;)

### Section 5.1

Like Brian noted in this int-dir review, should the impact of this seq num inheritance on the seq num wrapping be described ?

Section 6 is also silent on this case.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

Suggest to use the "aasvg" for nicer rendering on HTML ;-)

### Section 6.6

s/explcit knowledge/explicit knowledge/
2024-12-02
18 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-12-01
18 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### __general__

* Is "ARP learning" throughout specifically ARP-only, or can it be read as
  "ARP/ND learning"?  If the latter, should the text be updated?

## Nits

### S2

* "specied" -> "specified"
2024-12-01
18 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-11-22
18 Brian Haberman Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list.
2024-11-21
18 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman
2024-11-21
18 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2024-11-20
18 Gunter Van de Velde Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-12-05
2024-11-20
18 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot has been issued
2024-11-20
18 Gunter Van de Velde [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde
2024-11-20
18 Gunter Van de Velde Created "Approve" ballot
2024-11-20
18 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-11-20
18 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot writeup was changed
2024-11-19
18 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-11-18
18 David Dong
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-11-18
18 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-11-18
18 Robert Sparks Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list.
2024-11-16
18 Susan Hares Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list.
2024-11-12
18 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2024-11-08
18 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2024-11-07
18 Joseph Touch Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-11-07
18 Joseph Touch Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch.
2024-11-07
18 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch
2024-11-07
18 Magnus Westerlund Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Vidhi Goel was rejected
2024-11-07
18 Ron Bonica Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Ron Bonica was rejected
2024-11-07
18 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2024-11-07
18 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Vidhi Goel
2024-11-07
18 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks
2024-11-04
18 Rifaat Shekh-Yusef Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef was rejected
2024-10-31
18 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
2024-10-30
18 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2024-10-29
18 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-10-29
18 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-19. 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 extensions to Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Integrated
  Routing and Bridging (IRB) procedures specified in RFC7432 and
  RFC9135 to enhance the mobility mechanisms for EVPN IRB-based
  networks.  The proposed extensions improve the handling of host
  mobility and duplicate address detection in EVPN-IRB networks to
  cover a broader set of scenarios where host IP to MAC bindings may
  change across moves.  These enhancements address limitations in the
  existing EVPN IRB mobility procedures by providing more efficient and
  scalable solutions.  The extensions are backward compatible with
  existing EVPN IRB implementations and aim to optimize network
  performance in scenarios involving frequent IP address mobility.

  NOTE TO IESG (TO BE DELETED BEFORE PUBLISHING): This draft lists six
  authors which is above the required limit of five.  Given significant
  and active contributions to the draft from all six authors over the
  course of six years, we would like to request IESG to allow
  publication with six authors.  Specifically, the three Cisco authors
  are the original inventors of these procedures and contributed
  heavily to rev 0 draft, most of which is still intact.  AT&T is also
  a key contributor towards defining the use cases that this document
  addresses as well as the proposed solution.  Authors from Nokia and
  Juniper have further contributed to revisions and discussions
  steadily over last six years to enable respective implementations and
  a wider adoption.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility/


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

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3024/





2024-10-29
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-10-29
18 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2024-10-29
18 Gunter Van de Velde Last call was requested
2024-10-29
18 Gunter Van de Velde Last call announcement was generated
2024-10-29
18 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot approval text was generated
2024-10-29
18 Gunter Van de Velde Ballot writeup was generated
2024-10-29
18 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-10-16
18 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-10-16
18 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-10-16
18 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18.txt
2024-10-16
18 (System) New version approved
2024-10-16
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2024-10-16
18 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2024-08-06
17 Gunter Van de Velde https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/grbMFV4Acirc5tLylxR5aD8wDaA/
2024-08-06
17 (System) Changed action holders to Ali Sajassi, John Drake, Jorge Rabadan, Aparna Pattekar, Neeraj Malhotra, Avinash Lingala (IESG state changed)
2024-08-06
17 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-07-29
17 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-07-29
17 Gunter Van de Velde Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (Update Responsible AD)
2024-03-20
17 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde
2023-10-16
17 Stephane Litkowski
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various affiliations.
The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated accordingly.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are at least two known implementations of the draft.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No, it's focus is EVPN.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

After review and updates, the document is clear and can move forward.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The draft look to be compliant and not matching such issue. Early RTGDIR review has been requested and comments were addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard is the proper type as the document proposes new procedures that will require interoperability.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR poll was done at WG adoption and WGLC.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are currently 6 authors. All authors have actively contributed on either building the use case or the solution proposed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No more nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References look OK.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

No IANA action required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No IANA action required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-10-16
17 Stephane Litkowski Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston
2023-10-16
17 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-10-16
17 Stephane Litkowski IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-10-16
17 Stephane Litkowski Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-10-16
17 Stephane Litkowski
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various affiliations.
The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated accordingly.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are at least two known implementations of the draft.


## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

No, it's focus is EVPN.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

N/A

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

After review and updates, the document is clear and can move forward.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

The draft look to be compliant and not matching such issue. Early RTGDIR review has been requested and comments were addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed standard is the proper type as the document proposes new procedures that will require interoperability.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

IPR poll was done at WG adoption and WGLC.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

There are currently 6 authors. All authors have actively contributed on either building the use case or the solution proposed.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No more nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References look OK.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

N/A

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

N/A

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

No IANA action required.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No IANA action required.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-10-16
17 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-17.txt
2023-10-16
17 (System) New version approved
2023-10-16
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-10-16
17 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-10-11
16 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-16.txt
2023-10-11
16 (System) New version approved
2023-10-11
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-10-11
16 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-10-06
15 Stephane Litkowski Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-10-06
15 Stephane Litkowski Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2023-10-06
15 Stephane Litkowski Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-10-06
15 Stephane Litkowski Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski
2023-10-06
15 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2023-09-20
15 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-15.txt
2023-09-20
15 (System) New version approved
2023-09-20
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-09-20
15 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-09-19
14 Stephane Litkowski Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2023-09-19
14 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2023-08-31
14 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-14.txt
2023-08-31
14 (System) New version approved
2023-08-31
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-08-31
14 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-08-21
13 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-13.txt
2023-08-21
13 (System) New version approved
2023-08-21
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-08-21
13 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-08-15
12 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-12.txt
2023-08-15
12 (System) New version approved
2023-08-15
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-08-15
12 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-08-01
11 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-11.txt
2023-08-01
11 (System) New version approved
2023-08-01
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-08-01
11 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-07-17
10 Donald Eastlake Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2023-07-17
10 Donald Eastlake Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2023-07-09
10 Haomian Zheng Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2023-06-30
10 Stephane Litkowski Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2023-06-01
10 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-10.txt
2023-06-01
10 (System) New version approved
2023-06-01
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2023-06-01
10 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2023-06-01
09 (System) Document has expired
2022-11-28
09 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-09.txt
2022-11-28
09 (System) New version approved
2022-11-28
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2022-11-28
09 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2022-10-21
08 (System) Document has expired
2022-04-19
08 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-08.txt
2022-04-19
08 Neeraj Malhotra New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Neeraj Malhotra)
2022-04-19
08 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2022-04-05
07 (System) Document has expired
2021-10-02
07 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-07.txt
2021-10-02
07 (System) New version approved
2021-10-02
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2021-10-02
07 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2021-10-02
06 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-06.txt
2021-10-02
06 (System) New version approved
2021-10-02
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2021-10-02
06 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2021-09-16
05 (System) Document has expired
2021-03-15
05 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-05.txt
2021-03-15
05 (System) New version approved
2021-03-15
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra , bess-chairs@ietf.org
2021-03-15
05 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2021-02-11
04 Stephane Litkowski Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-02-11
04 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call
2021-02-11
04 Stephane Litkowski This document now replaces draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility instead of None
2021-01-18
04 Stephane Litkowski IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2020-10-27
04 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-04.txt
2020-10-27
04 (System) New version approved
2020-10-27
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Drake , Ali Sajassi , Avinash Lingala , Aparna Pattekar , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra
2020-10-27
04 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2020-05-16
03 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-03.txt
2020-05-16
03 (System) New version approved
2020-05-16
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neeraj Malhotra , Aparna Pattekar , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Ali Sajassi , Avinash Lingala
2020-05-16
03 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2020-05-05
02 (System) Document has expired
2019-11-02
02 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-02.txt
2019-11-02
02 (System) New version approved
2019-11-02
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi
2019-11-02
02 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2019-06-19
01 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-01.txt
2019-06-19
01 (System) New version approved
2019-06-19
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi
2019-06-19
01 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision
2019-03-27
00 Neeraj Malhotra New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-00.txt
2019-03-27
00 (System) New version approved
2019-03-27
00 Neeraj Malhotra
Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali …
Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi
2019-03-27
00 Neeraj Malhotra Uploaded new revision