Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and Configuration Modifications
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-03-28
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-03-20
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2013-02-26
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2013-02-19
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2013-02-17
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2013-02-13
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2013-02-12
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-02-11
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2013-02-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2013-02-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-02-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-02-11
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-02-08
|
11 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-02-07
|
11 | Dan Li | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-11.txt |
2013-02-07
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2013-02-06
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2013-02-06
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2013-02-06
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2013-02-06
|
10 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I agree with Pete's question about interest in implementing. |
2013-02-06
|
10 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2013-02-05
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2013-02-05
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2013-02-05
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2013-02-04
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2013-02-04
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2013-02-04
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Richard Barnes on 2-Feb-2013 raised a question, and I have not seen a response. The use of … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Richard Barnes on 2-Feb-2013 raised a question, and I have not seen a response. The use of "likely" in the discussion of backward compatibility does not really help an implementor know what to do. I strongly prefer more precise language. From the Gen-ART Review: > > Section 2.1. Would be helpful to either include the old formats > and/or say explicitly what is changing. > > Section 2.2. > "Nodes which support" -> "nodes that support" > "Ordering of CONFIG objects" -> "... With different C-type values" > > Section 3.1.MBZ. Might help to clarify that this means that the > number of bits MUST be a multiple of 32. (I got a little confused > between bits and bytes here.) > > Section 4. "Likely" > Is it possible for a 4204-compliant implementation to not do one > of these? If so then remove "likely". If not, then why happens > on the exceptional case? |
2013-02-04
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2013-02-04
|
10 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2013-02-03
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] A strictly procedural question for the shepherd and the AD. The writeup says: There have been no public statements related to implementations, … [Ballot comment] A strictly procedural question for the shepherd and the AD. The writeup says: There have been no public statements related to implementations, though significant interest was expressed by the working group to progress this extension of the LMP protocol in support of future extensions. The two halves of that sentence seem incongruous. If there is no indication that anyone wants to use this extension mechanism, but it's just that it seems like a good idea for future extensions, I wonder why this is worth doing, especially given backwards compatibility issues outlined in section 4. Is there really nobody that is planning a new extension that intends to use this mechanism? I don't intend to block the document on these grounds, but I do think it is worth an answer. The shepherd writeup was extremely thin all around. |
2013-02-03
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2013-02-03
|
10 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2013-01-31
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2013-01-31
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2013-01-27
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2013-01-27
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-01-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2013-01-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2013-01-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-01-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-01-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-02-07 |
2013-01-24
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-01-24
|
10 | Dan Li | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-10.txt |
2013-01-21
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-01-21
|
09 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2013-01-17
|
09 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the Second Action below. IANA understands that, upon approval of this … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09 and has the following comments: IANA has a question about the Second Action below. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the CONFIG Object Class type name space (Value 6) subregistry of the Link Management Protocol (LMP) located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-parameters.xml a new value is to be registered as follows: C-Type: [ TBD at time of registration ] Description: BehaviorConfig Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors have suggested a value of "3" for the C-Type in this assignment. Second, a new subregistry of the Link Management Protocol (LMP) located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-parameters.xml is to be created. The new registry will be named the "LMP Behaviour Configuration Flags" registry. Maintenance and new registrations in this registry will be done through Standards Action as defined in RFC 5266. The new subregistry has initial registrations as follows: Bit Bit Meaning Reference Number Name --------+----------+-------------------------------------------+------------------ 0 S SONET/SDH support [ RFC-to-be ] 1 D DWDM support [ RFC-to-be ] 2 C Data Channel consistency check support [ RFC-to-be ] 3 - 8152 Unassigned Question->Is it correct to use the word "Behaviour" in the name for the new registry "LMP Behaviour Configuration Flags"? It appears that the document uses "behavior" (without 'u') throughout. IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones 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. |
2013-01-10
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2013-01-10
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2013-01-10
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier |
2013-01-10
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Julien Laganier |
2013-01-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and Configuration Modifications) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document: - 'Link Management Protocol Behavior Negotiation and Configuration Modifications' 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 2013-01-21. 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 The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. This document defines an extension to LMP to negotiate capabilities and indicate support for LMP extensions. The defined extension is compatible with non-supporting implementations. This document updates RFC 4204, RFC 4207, RFC 4209 and RFC 5818. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-01-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-01-07
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-01-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-12-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | (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? … (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? Proposed Standard. Yes. (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: Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. This document defines an extension to LMP to negotiate capabilities and indicate support for LMP extensions. The defined extension is compatible with non-supporting implementations. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No concerns, the document had good support. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There have been no public statements related to implementations, though significant interest was expressed by the working group to progress this extension of the LMP protocol in support of future extensions. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel 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 is ready for publication. (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 concerns. (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. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures filed. (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 WG supports this document. (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. (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. Nits passed. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No concerns. (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 RFC 4204, RFC 4207, RFC 4209 and RFC 5818 (as listed on the title page and 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). No concerns. (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 concerns. (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. No concerns. |
2012-12-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the Document Shepherd.' |
2012-12-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-12-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-12-21
|
09 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-li-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation |
2012-12-19
|
09 | Dan Li | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09.txt |
2012-12-18
|
08 | Dan Li | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-08.txt |
2012-12-10
|
07 | Stephanie McCammon | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-07.txt |
2012-10-02
|
06 | Lou Berger | IETF state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2012-07-30
|
06 | Lou Berger | LC completed: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13893.html LC started: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13836.html |
2012-07-30
|
06 | Dan Li | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-06.txt |
2012-05-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | Changed shepherd to Deborah Brungard |
2012-01-16
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-05.txt |
2011-12-08
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-06-07
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-04.txt |
2011-04-07
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-03.txt |
2011-03-14
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-02.txt |
2010-10-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-01.txt |
2010-10-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-00.txt |