Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-26
|
(System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof and RFC 9566, changed IESG state to RFC … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof and RFC 9566, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2024-04-12
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2024-04-03
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2024-03-01
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2024-03-01
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2024-03-01
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-03-01
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-03-01
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-03-01
|
11 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-03-01
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-03-01
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2024-03-01
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-03-01
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-03-01
|
11 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-02-29
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2024-02-29
|
11 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-02-28
|
11 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document - I found it a fascinating read! Also, much thanks to Carlos Pignataro for the OpsDir review ( … [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document - I found it a fascinating read! Also, much thanks to Carlos Pignataro for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2023-12-23/), and to Bala'zs for following up and addressing the comments. |
2024-02-28
|
11 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2024-02-27
|
11 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-02-27
|
11 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Olivier Bonaventure for the TSVART review. This document is reusing RFC9025 which confirms with the … [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Olivier Bonaventure for the TSVART review. This document is reusing RFC9025 which confirms with the BCP145, hence no objection from using UDP as encapsulation layer. However, I am not sure why this is an informational document. what was the reasoning behind it? |
2024-02-27
|
11 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-02-26
|
11 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-02-26
|
11 | Martin Duke | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Olivier Bonaventure for the TSVART review. |
2024-02-26
|
11 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2024-02-25
|
11 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-02-23
|
11 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-02-22
|
11 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11.txt |
2024-02-22
|
11 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2024-02-22
|
11 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-21
|
10 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD. I have one question. In section 4.3, you … [Ballot comment] Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD. I have one question. In section 4.3, you have "Service-ID values are provisioned per DetNet service via configuration, i.e., via the Controller Plane". Later, in section 5, you have "This information is provisioned per DetNet flow via configuration, e.g., via the controller plane." Are the respective usages of "i.e." and "e.g." deliberate? That is, is your intent that in section 4.3, service-ID values should be provided provision only via the controller plane, but in section 5 you intend that Control and Management Plane Parameters can be configured any way, and the controller plane is merely an example? (My rule of thumb is that i.e. should be read as "in other words", and e.g. should be read as "for example".) |
2024-02-21
|
10 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2024-02-21
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. I always find DetNet work interesting … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. I always find DetNet work interesting and useful. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Lou Berger for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status (the latter could have been more detailed tough). Other thanks to Tatuya Jinmei, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2024-02-15/ (thanks to Balázs for his reply) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Is MPLS over UDP the only solution ? While using MPLS over UDP is indeed a valid solution for sequencing the packets, I wonder whether RFC 8939 could have been updated/extended to also add ordering, this would probably have less overhead. Was this discussed in the WG? If so, why not adding this justification in the draft ? (note I may have missed something obvious :-O ) ## Section 5 `IPv6 next header field set to "UDP"` seems to ignore the optional extension headers between the IPv6 header and the UDP header. The wording in `IPv6 next header field set to "UDP"` seems to indicate an action "to set" rather than "being equal to" (as suggested by the leading `The information needed to identify individual`). Suggest to clarify. I am most probably missing something obvious here but does this section assumes that the only DetNet flows are UDP ? # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## Section 1 Unsure whether 'correctly' is sensible in `correctly represented as PREOF`. Unsure whether the reference to a YANG model is useful in the same 1st paragraph. |
2024-02-21
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-02-20
|
10 | Carlos Pignataro | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Pignataro Telechat OPSDIR review |
2024-02-20
|
10 | Carlos Pignataro | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version': Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
2024-02-20
|
10 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-10.txt |
2024-02-20
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-02-20
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Andrew Malis , Balazs Varga , Janos Farkas |
2024-02-20
|
10 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-15
|
09 | Tatuya Jinmei | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei. Sent review to list. |
2024-02-13
|
09 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2024-02-09
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Tatuya Jinmei |
2024-02-09
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-02-29 |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | Changed consensus to Yes from No |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot has been issued |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-02-08
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-08
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-02-08
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09.txt |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2024-02-08
|
09 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-19
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Please review and clarify per the OPSDIR Review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2023-12-23/ |
2024-01-19
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Balazs Varga, János Farkas, Andy Malis (IESG state changed) |
2024-01-19
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-12-29
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-12-23
|
08 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-22
|
08 | Olivier Bonaventure | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Olivier Bonaventure. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-21
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2023-12-19
|
08 | Catherine Meadows | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Catherine Meadows. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-19
|
08 | Joel Halpern | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. |
2023-12-15
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Catherine Meadows |
2023-12-14
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2023-12-13
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-12-13
|
08 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08, 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 |
2023-12-12
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Olivier Bonaventure |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-12-22): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, rdd@cert.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-12-22): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, rdd@cert.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet) to consider the following document: - 'Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP' as Informational RFC 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 2023-12-22. 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 describes how DetNet IP data plane can support the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) built on the existing MPLS PREOF solution defined for DetNet MPLS Data Plane and the mechanisms defined by MPLS-over-UDP technology. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-12-08
|
08 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-11-07
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
2023-11-07
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2023-11-07
|
08 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08.txt |
2023-11-07
|
08 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2023-11-07
|
08 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-27
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/uOfa3pPOQmUqk1LGktfSxqdDwe4/ |
2023-10-27
|
07 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw, Balazs Varga, János Farkas, Andy Malis (IESG state changed) |
2023-10-27
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2023-10-23
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Lou Berger | # 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? Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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)? This is an information document related to internal implementation of MPLS PREOF [RFC8964] and the mechanisms defined in [RFC9025]. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed. ## Additional Reviews Note that the document has been reviewed by the RTG-DIR, and the review has been addressed per on-list discussion even though it shows as 'Has Issues' on data tracker. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/V9OCrUiJE9Umx771SBV12lrN1ww/ 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. This document relates to MPLS, but the base work was done in this WG so current WG attendees should be sufficient. 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. None required. 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]? No YANG modules are defined. 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? Yes - as an Informational RFC 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? [6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified. 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? Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFCs. 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. Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/QhIKWSvWf6259hQUahwbfIxCrJE/ No IPR was disclosed. 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. Yes, < 5 authors. 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.) None, document is ready 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, these look reasonable. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 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. None 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? No. 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. None. 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]). This is an informational section, no IANA impact. 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. None [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/ |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Lou Berger | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Lou Berger | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Lou Berger | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-07-26
|
07 | Lou Berger | # 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? Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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)? This is an information document related to internal implementation of MPLS PREOF [RFC8964] and the mechanisms defined in [RFC9025]. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed. ## Additional Reviews Note that the document has been reviewed by the RTG-DIR, and the review has been addressed per on-list discussion even though it shows as 'Has Issues' on data tracker. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/V9OCrUiJE9Umx771SBV12lrN1ww/ 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. This document relates to MPLS, but the base work was done in this WG so current WG attendees should be sufficient. 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. None required. 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]? No YANG modules are defined. 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? Yes - as an Informational RFC 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? [6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified. 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? Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFCs. 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. Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/QhIKWSvWf6259hQUahwbfIxCrJE/ No IPR was disclosed. 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. Yes, < 5 authors. 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.) None, document is ready 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, these look reasonable. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 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. None 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? No. 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. None. 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]). This is an informational section, no IANA impact. 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. None [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/ |
2023-07-25
|
07 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-07.txt |
2023-07-25
|
07 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2023-07-25
|
07 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-25
|
06 | Lou Berger | # 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? Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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)? This is an information document related to internal implementation of MPLS PREOF [RFC8964] and the mechanisms defined in [RFC9025]. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed. ## 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. This document relates to MPLS, but the base work was done in this WG so current WG attendees should be sufficient. 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. None required. 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]? No YANG modules are defined. 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? Yes - as an Informational RFC 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? [6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified. 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? Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFCs. 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. Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/QhIKWSvWf6259hQUahwbfIxCrJE/ No IPR was disclosed. 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. Yes, < 5 authors. 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.) None, document is ready 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, these look reasonable. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 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. None 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? No. 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. None. 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]). This is an informational section, no IANA impact. 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. None [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/ |
2023-07-25
|
06 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-06.txt |
2023-07-25
|
06 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2023-07-25
|
06 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-24
|
05 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-05.txt |
2023-07-24
|
05 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2023-07-24
|
05 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-23
|
04 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-07-23
|
04 | Lou Berger | Need to address ID nits |
2023-07-23
|
04 | Lou Berger | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2023-07-23
|
04 | Lou Berger | # 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? Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent. No objections have been raised. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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)? This is an information document related to internal implementation of MPLS PREOF [RFC8964] and the mechanisms defined in [RFC9025]. No specific implementations have been discussed or disclosed. ## 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. This document relates to MPLS, but the base work was done in this WG so current WG attendees should be sufficient. 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. None required. 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]? No YANG modules are defined. 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? Yes - as an Informational RFC 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? [6] was reviewed, no such issues were identified. 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? Informational -- this documents a method to implement a behavior defined in the previously mentioned RFCs. 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. Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/QhIKWSvWf6259hQUahwbfIxCrJE/ No IPR was disclosed. 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. Yes, < 5 authors. 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.) ** Need rev to address 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, these look reasonable. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? None. 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. None 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? No. 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. None. 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]). This is an informational section, no IANA impact. 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. None [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/ |
2023-07-23
|
04 | Lou Berger | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2023-07-21
|
04 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-06-16
|
04 | Lou Berger | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/airn7R1fcnzjc6bzhunMLKLChS0/ |
2023-06-16
|
04 | Lou Berger | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2023-06-16
|
04 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-05-31
|
04 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-04.txt |
2023-05-31
|
04 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2023-05-31
|
04 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-26
|
03 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-03.txt |
2023-04-26
|
03 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2023-04-26
|
03 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2023-04-14
|
02 | Lou Berger | Pre WG LC IPR Call complete: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/QhIKWSvWf6259hQUahwbfIxCrJE/ balazs.a.varga https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/wzmVG0EVWyt4k6Ej4zwhujy-zkI/ Janos.Farkas https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/-kAT4DWyaJDr6DEKQ7cOE61BUA4/ Andrew G. Malis https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/npsF8zPzsrCuUSZA3gr_rtAkHp0/ |
2023-04-14
|
02 | Lou Berger | issue raised by rtg dir review, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-02-rtgdir-early-decraene-2023-04-05/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/HTs8QBQ0FNyWdoVTszlyY4JVeDE/ |
2023-04-14
|
02 | Lou Berger | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2023-04-05
|
02 | Bruno Decraene | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Bruno Decraene. Sent review to list. |
2023-03-20
|
02 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Bruno Decraene |
2023-03-20
|
02 | Luc André Burdet | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Harish Sitaraman was rejected |
2023-03-17
|
02 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Harish Sitaraman |
2023-03-12
|
02 | Lou Berger | Pre WG LC IPR Call: Pending responses: balazs.a.varga Janos.Farkas Andrew G. Malis |
2023-03-12
|
02 | Lou Berger | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-03-12
|
02 | Lou Berger | Changed consensus to No from Unknown |
2023-02-17
|
02 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to lberger@labn.net because the document shepherd was set |
2023-02-17
|
02 | Lou Berger | Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger |
2022-11-06
|
02 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-02.txt |
2022-11-06
|
02 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2022-11-06
|
02 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-05
|
01 | János Farkas | Added to session: IETF-115: detnet Mon-1300 |
2022-09-26
|
01 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-01.txt |
2022-09-26
|
01 | Balazs Varga | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2022-09-26
|
01 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-22
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-04-01
|
00 | Lou Berger | This document now replaces draft-varga-detnet-ip-preof instead of None |
2022-03-21
|
00 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-00.txt |
2022-03-21
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2022-03-21
|
00 | Balazs Varga | Set submitter to "Balázs Varga", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: detnet-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-03-21
|
00 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |