Diameter Load Information Conveyance
draft-ietf-dime-load-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-06-04
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-05-01
|
09 | Ignas Bagdonas | Shepherding AD changed to Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-04-16
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-03-20
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2019-03-11
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2019-02-13
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2017-04-11
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2017-03-29
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Eric Rescorla |
2017-03-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-03-24
|
09 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2017-03-24
|
09 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-03-24
|
09 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-03-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-03-24
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2017-03-23
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2017-03-23
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2017-03-23
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-03-23
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-03-23
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-03-23
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2017-03-22
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-03-22
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-09.txt |
2017-03-22
|
09 | (System) | Secretariat manually posting. Approvals already received |
2017-03-22
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-16
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Since DIME doesn't have end-to-end security, shouldn't the security considerations section mention that as well? It seems to fit the security considerations and … [Ballot comment] Since DIME doesn't have end-to-end security, shouldn't the security considerations section mention that as well? It seems to fit the security considerations and would serve as a reminder of this problem. |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] More or less editorial comments: 1) These two MUSTs are actually hard to "ensure" and should probably be SHOULDs or lower case musts: … [Ballot comment] More or less editorial comments: 1) These two MUSTs are actually hard to "ensure" and should probably be SHOULDs or lower case musts: sec 6.1.1: "A Diameter endpoint that supports the Diameter Load mechanism MUST include a Load report of type HOST in sufficient answer messages to ensure that all consumers of the load information receive timely updates." sec 6.1.2: "A Diameter Agent that supports the Diameter Load mechanism MUST include a PEER Load report in sufficient answer messages to ensure that all users of the load information receive timely updates." 2) This part also seems hard to realize (in sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2): "The LOAD value should be calculated in a way that reflects the available load independently of the weight of each server, in order to accurately compare LOAD values from different nodes. Any specific LOAD value needs to identify the same amount of available capacity, regardless the Diameter node that calculates the value. The mechanism used to calculate the LOAD value that fulfills this requirement is an implementation decision." 3) I don't think you can require this for all diameter nodes (as they might not implement this extension): "A Diameter node MUST be prepared to process Load reports of type HOST and of type PEER" Just remove the sentence or at least don't use normative language. Side note: This MUST as well as the ones above are like saying "A node that implements/complies to this spec MUST implement this spec". It not really necessary to say this. |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] - From the shepherd writeup: The document would benefit from a review by AAA Doctors. I wonder if it happened? - … [Ballot comment] - From the shepherd writeup: The document would benefit from a review by AAA Doctors. I wonder if it happened? - OLD: The DIME working group explicitly chose not to fulfill these requirements in DOIC due to several reasons. NEW: The DIME working group explicitly chose not to fulfill these requirements when publishing DOIC [RFC7683] due to several reasons. - pay attention to the consistency of Load versus load trough out the document. |
2017-03-15
|
08 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2017-03-14
|
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-03-14
|
08 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2017-03-14
|
08 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2017-03-13
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2017-03-13
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] consider reviewing the opsdir reviewers nits. |
2017-03-13
|
08 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2017-03-11
|
08 | Roni Even | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. |
2017-03-09
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2017-03-09
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2017-03-07
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2017-03-07
|
08 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-08.txt |
2017-03-07
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-03-07
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Campbell , Jean-Jacques Trottin , Steve Donovan |
2017-03-07
|
08 | Steve Donovan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-03-07
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2017-03-07
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2017-03-07
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2017-03-07
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-03-07
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-03-01
|
07 | Will LIU | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shucheng LIU. Sent review to list. |
2017-02-27
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2017-02-23
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-02-23
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the AVP Codes subregistry of the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/ three new AVP Codes are to be registered as follows: AVP Code: [ TBD-at-registration ] Attribute Name: Load Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] AVP Code: [ TBD-at-registration ] Attribute Name: Load-Type Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] AVP Code: [ TBD-at-registration ] Attribute Name: Load-Value Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> Section 7.4 of the current draft states that: "The SourceID AVP is defined in [I-D.ietf-dime-agent-overload]. It is used to identify the Diameter node that sent the Load report." is the SourceID AVP to be registered upon approval of this draft, or should it wait for the approval of the other draft [I-D.ietf-dime-agent-overload]? Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Second, Section 7.5 describes Attribute Value Pair flag rules for the new AVP Codes. IANA QUESTION --> Is there a specific action for IANA in section 7.5 of the current draft, or is it documentation for implementers? The IANA Services Operator 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. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2017-02-23
|
07 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Roni Even. Sent review to list. |
2017-02-19
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Bob Briscoe |
2017-02-19
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Bob Briscoe |
2017-02-16
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2017-02-16
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ólafur Guðmundsson |
2017-02-15
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2017-02-15
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2017-02-15
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shucheng LIU |
2017-02-15
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Shucheng LIU |
2017-02-14
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-03-16 |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-dime-load@ietf.org, "Jouni Korhonen" , jouni.nospam@gmail.com, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-dime-load@ietf.org, "Jouni Korhonen" , jouni.nospam@gmail.com, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Diameter Load Information Conveyance) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: - 'Diameter Load Information Conveyance' 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 2017-02-27. 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 defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load information. RFC7068 describes requirements for Overload Control in Diameter. This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded. RFC7683 (Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC)) solution describes a mechanism meeting most of the requirements, but does not currently include the ability to send load information. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-load/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-load/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Last call was requested |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2017-02-13
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-02-07
|
07 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-07.txt |
2017-02-07
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-07
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jean-Jacques Trottin" , "Steve Donovan" , "Ben Campbell" |
2017-02-07
|
07 | Steve Donovan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-16
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The document is Standards Track. This is stated on the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load information. RFC7683 (DOIC) decided not to address load information delivery. This document fills that gap. Working Group Summary The document had extensive discussion on the email reflector and there is working group support behind the documented solution. It is worth noting that Diameter experts from other SDOs (3GPP) also participated actively to the discussion. Document Quality The specification is a natural extension to DOIC mechanism, which is already adopted by 3GPP standards. No specific reviews have been requested or carried out by different directorates. Personnel Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie) is the responsible AD. (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. Document shepherd has reviewed the -06 version of the document and thinks it is in a good enough state to be published. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. The document would benefit from a review by AAA Doctors. (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. None. (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. All three authors have responded they are not aware of any IPRs. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document has been discussed in length in the WG with external SDO (3GPP) experts also actively joining the discussion. The consensus behind the document is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None of the issues found by IDnits require any specific action. Old references will be automatically corrected when a new version gets produced by the RFC Editor. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. None. (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? This specification has a normative reference to draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload (and that document has a normative reference to this document). These two documents need to be progressed in parallel. Both documents are considered ready from the DIME WG point of view. (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. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This specification requires an assignment of four new AVP Codes. No new registries are created and no new values are needed from existing registries. (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. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Responsible AD changed to Stephen Farrell |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-06.txt |
2016-12-06
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-06
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jean-Jacques Trottin" , "Steve Donovan" , "Ben Campbell" |
2016-12-06
|
06 | Steve Donovan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-02
|
05 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-05.txt |
2016-12-02
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-02
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jean-Jacques Trottin" , "Steve Donovan" , "Ben Campbell" |
2016-12-02
|
05 | Steve Donovan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-02
|
04 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-12-01
|
04 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-04.txt |
2016-12-01
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-12-01
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jean-Jacques Trottin" , "Steve Donovan" , "Ben Campbell" |
2016-12-01
|
04 | Steve Donovan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-11-22
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-11-17
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-11-11
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-11-11
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Ben's IPR response 11/10/16 Neither do I. Thanks! Ben. |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Response from Steve: I know of no IPR relating to the Diameter Load specification. Regards, Steve |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | IPR call sent 11/10/2016.. Dear Authors and Contributors, Before proceeding with the photo write-up on draft-ietf-dime-load-03, I would like to check whether there are … IPR call sent 11/10/2016.. Dear Authors and Contributors, Before proceeding with the photo write-up on draft-ietf-dime-load-03, I would like to check whether there are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document. Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-06? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) If IPR disclosures have not been filed, please explain why. Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at . Regards, Jouni & Lionel |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Notification list changed to "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> |
2016-11-10
|
03 | Jouni Korhonen | Document shepherd changed to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-09-27
|
03 | Steve Donovan | New version approved |
2016-09-27
|
03 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-03.txt |
2016-09-27
|
03 | Steve Donovan | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jean-Jacques Trottin" , "Steve Donovan" , "Ben Campbell" |
2016-09-27
|
03 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-19
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-06-17
|
02 | Jouni Korhonen | Tags Other - see Comment Log, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2016-06-17
|
02 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2016-06-17
|
02 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2016-05-24
|
02 | Jouni Korhonen | WGLC #1 starts 5/24/16 and ends 6/7/16 |
2016-05-24
|
02 | Jouni Korhonen | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2016-05-24
|
02 | Jouni Korhonen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-04-04
|
02 | Lionel Morand | Added -02 to session: IETF-95: dime Fri-1000 |
2016-03-18
|
02 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-02.txt |
2015-10-14
|
01 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-01.txt |
2015-07-06
|
00 | Steve Donovan | New version available: draft-ietf-dime-load-00.txt |