In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Loopback and Active Flags
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-11-09
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2022-09-22
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2022-09-14
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2022-09-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2022-09-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2022-09-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2022-08-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2022-08-29
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2022-08-29
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2022-08-29
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2022-08-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2022-08-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2022-08-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2022-08-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2022-08-29
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-08-29
|
10 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2022-08-29
|
10 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-08-22
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Thank you for addressing … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Thank you for addressing my previous blocking DISCUSS (kept below for archiving). I would have appreciated a reply to my non-blocking COMMENT though. Anyway, I am clearing my DISCUSS. Thanks to Pascal Thubert for his internet directorate review at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09-intdir-telechat-thubert-2022-06-28/ (please consider Pascal's comments as mine). Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## Previous DISCUSS (kept for archiving) As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Section 4.2 which address `The address of the node performing the copy operation` is confusing in the case of multiple interfaces (typical for a transit device BTW)... Which address should be used ? If the packet was received through an interface with a global address, then this should be the obvious choice or a loopback interface or ??? ### Section 4.2 just truncation ? ``` The copy is also truncated, i.e., any payload that resides after the IOAM option(s) is removed before transmitting the looped back packet back towards the encapsulating node. ``` It is unclear what happens to the IPv6 Next header field... Should the IP header length field be modified ? ### Section 4.2 forwarding ? It is unclear whether the packet is sent back to the source via the received interface or whether the packet is forwarded based on the FIB. ### IANA considerations conflicting text ? In section 4.1: ``` An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. ``` but in section 6: ``` IANA is requested to allocate the following bits in the "IOAM Trace Flags Registry" as follows: Bit 1 "Loopback" (L-bit) Bit 2 "Active" (A-bit) Note that bit 0 is the most significant bit in the Flags Registry. ``` Is it bit 0 or bit 1 ? ## COMMENTS ### "loopback" No need to reply, but every time I read "loopback", I think of the local "loopback interface". The use of "echo" would probably have made my reading easier ;-) ### Section 4.1 ``` An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. ``` Does it prevent further enhancements to Trace types ? ### Section 4.1.1 "SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity" but this recommendation is only for the encapsulating node while there are nodes / links on the path that may have much more constrained capacity. I suggest to remove this part and replace it by text not refering to encapsulating node interface. ### Section 5 ``` The IOAM options are encapsulated in one of the IOAM encapsulation types, e.g., [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh], or [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]. ``` Should this text also appear in the section 4? ### Section 5 capacity In ``` Thus, the rate of the traffic that includes the Active flag rate SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. ``` Should thie be "IOAM nodes' interfaces" to take into account all IOAM nodes (including transit). ## NITS ### Section 5 s/This draft focuses on three possible use cases/This document focuses on three possible use cases/ ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments |
2022-08-22
|
10 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2022-08-18
|
10 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and other comments, LGTM. Previous DISCUSS for posterity: Thanks for this document. I have one issue I'd like … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and other comments, LGTM. Previous DISCUSS for posterity: Thanks for this document. I have one issue I'd like to be sure we clear up. 1. In §4.1.1, The loopback flag MUST NOT be set if it is not guaranteed that there is a return path from each of the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes, This is heartwarming but I can’t see how you could guarantee this property at all times in any network using dynamic routing or even subject to dynamic conditions (and that would be all networks), and for that matter I’m not sure how to write code to even determine this in any general way. Is it your intention that this MUST NOT is directed to the operator and not to the code implementor? Or perhaps is it for very small values of “guarantee”? That is, is this an aspirational MUST and not a MUST MUST? In general it's a little problematic when we use RFC 2119 keywords in a protocol document, to express desires about how a protocol's operator should deploy it. They are at their best when used to express requirements for how a coder should implement the protocol. Please consider creating an operational considerations section, and grouping operational requirements and advice there, at least in that case it becomes clear to whom the RFC 2119 keywords are speaking. Alternately, please qualify the keywords appropriately in-line, e.g. in the above text you could say something like The domain MUST be configured such that there is expected to be a return path from each of the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes; if this expectation does not apply then configuration MUST NOT enable the loopback flag to be set, To me it seems as though it might be less painful to group these into an operational considerations section, but whatever works for you, as long as it's clear. I did a cursory check over the document with this in mind, the other place I identified what looks like operational guidance to me is also in §4.1.1, the paragraph about how you "SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity". At first blush that looks like something that could be computed automatically by inspection of the router's hardware, but by the time we get to the end of the paragraph we see that "prior knowledge about the network topology or size" is needed, so it must really be operational guidance. (Possibly this applies to the 1/N paragraphs in §4.2 and §5 also, although it's less clearly the case.) COMMENTs: 2. The document cites RFCs 7014 and 5475 normatively. They don't seem normative to me, they seem informative. 3. In §4.2, The L-bit MUST be cleared in the copy of the packet that a node sends back towards the source. This makes me wonder, does the looped back packet inherit the IP TTL/hop limit of the parent packet? The description of it as a “copy” makes me think it does. Should this be explicit? NITS: 4. In §5, This draft focuses on three possible use cases of active measurement Should be "this document focuses". 5. Again in §5, A selected data packet that is replicated, and its (possibly truncated) copy is forwarded with one or more IOAM options, while the original packet is forwarded normally, without IOAM options. I think you need to delete the "that" from the first clause? 6. And once again in §5, o IOAM active measurement using replicated data packets: probe packets are created by the encapsulating node by selecting some or all of the en route data packets and replicating them. The 1/N requirement calls into question "or all" above, unless N=1, something you strongly discourage. Although you don't technically *forbid* N=1, I think the inclusion of "or all" creates confusion and you could and should leave it out while still not technically forbidding N=1. 7. In §8, The attacker can potentially leverage the Loopback flag for a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, as multiple devices send looped-back copies of a packet to a single source. The use of "source" is odd here. By the nature of an attack, the looped-back copies wouldn't be targeted at the actual source of the packets. Possibly "target" or even "victim"? |
2022-08-18
|
10 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2022-08-18
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2022-08-18
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-08-18
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2022-08-18
|
10 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10.txt |
2022-08-18
|
10 | Tal Mizrahi | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi) |
2022-08-18
|
10 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-24
|
09 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot comment] Went through section 4.1.1/4.2/5 and after thinking about this, I believe the normative language in these sections address the concerns I raised in … [Ballot comment] Went through section 4.1.1/4.2/5 and after thinking about this, I believe the normative language in these sections address the concerns I raised in my previous discuss relating to section 8, hence clearing the discuss point. |
2022-07-24
|
09 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Andrew Alston has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2022-06-30
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Frank Brockners, Tal Mizrahi, Shwetha Bhandari, Barak Gafni, Mickey Spiegel (IESG state changed) |
2022-06-30
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2022-06-30
|
09 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] I support John's Discuss. One Minor comment that matches the comment that I put on the DEX document. 2. N >> M … [Ballot comment] I support John's Discuss. One Minor comment that matches the comment that I put on the DEX document. 2. N >> M I'm assuming that by ">>", this means much greater than? It would be better use words here, or at least define what this means (e.g., as opposed to a bit-shift). Thanks, Rob |
2022-06-30
|
09 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Thank you to the Working Group for tackling the issue of the author count. I know those conversations can be quite un-fun. I … [Ballot comment] Thank you to the Working Group for tackling the issue of the author count. I know those conversations can be quite un-fun. I concur with John that the references to RFCs 7014 and 5475 should be informative. Section 6 should indicate explicitly that this document is the reference document for the two new registry entries. I realize that may be obvious, but you need to say it. |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot discuss] Hi, Thanks for the work on this document. While I am supporting the other discusses on this document, I would also like to … [Ballot discuss] Hi, Thanks for the work on this document. While I am supporting the other discusses on this document, I would also like to discuss some of the language in section 8. Specifically: In order to mitigate the performance-related attacks described above, as described in Section 7 it should be possible for IOAM-enabled devices to selectively apply the mechanisms that use the flags defined in this document to a subset of the traffic, and to limit the performance of synthetically generated packets to a configurable rate. Specifically, IOAM nodes should be able to: Considering the serious security considerations in play here - can we consider making the should here a MUST in both the second and final lines of the above. |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09} CC @ekline ## Comments ### S4.1.1 * "if the encapsulating node's identity is not available … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for {draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09} CC @ekline ## Comments ### S4.1.1 * "if the encapsulating node's identity is not available in the encapsulation header" Can you say a little more about what circumstances would cause the encapsulating node's identity to not be available? This seemed a little surprising to me. ### S4.2 * I think "address of the node performing the copy" should be expanded to say that RFC 6724 source address selection MUST apply. ## Nits ### S4.4 * "Specificallly" -> "Specifically" ### S5 * "layer needs not" -> "layer need not" |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2022-06-29
|
09 | John Scudder | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document. I have one issue I'd like to be sure we clear up. 1. In §4.1.1, The loopback flag … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document. I have one issue I'd like to be sure we clear up. 1. In §4.1.1, The loopback flag MUST NOT be set if it is not guaranteed that there is a return path from each of the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes, This is heartwarming but I can’t see how you could guarantee this property at all times in any network using dynamic routing or even subject to dynamic conditions (and that would be all networks), and for that matter I’m not sure how to write code to even determine this in any general way. Is it your intention that this MUST NOT is directed to the operator and not to the code implementor? Or perhaps is it for very small values of “guarantee”? That is, is this an aspirational MUST and not a MUST MUST? In general it's a little problematic when we use RFC 2119 keywords in a protocol document, to express desires about how a protocol's operator should deploy it. They are at their best when used to express requirements for how a coder should implement the protocol. Please consider creating an operational considerations section, and grouping operational requirements and advice there, at least in that case it becomes clear to whom the RFC 2119 keywords are speaking. Alternately, please qualify the keywords appropriately in-line, e.g. in the above text you could say something like The domain MUST be configured such that there is expected to be a return path from each of the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes; if this expectation does not apply then configuration MUST NOT enable the loopback flag to be set, To me it seems as though it might be less painful to group these into an operational considerations section, but whatever works for you, as long as it's clear. I did a cursory check over the document with this in mind, the other place I identified what looks like operational guidance to me is also in §4.1.1, the paragraph about how you "SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity". At first blush that looks like something that could be computed automatically by inspection of the router's hardware, but by the time we get to the end of the paragraph we see that "prior knowledge about the network topology or size" is needed, so it must really be operational guidance. (Possibly this applies to the 1/N paragraphs in §4.2 and §5 also, although it's less clearly the case.) |
2022-06-29
|
09 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] 2. The document cites RFCs 7014 and 5475 normatively. They don't seem normative to me, they seem informative. 3. In §4.2, … [Ballot comment] 2. The document cites RFCs 7014 and 5475 normatively. They don't seem normative to me, they seem informative. 3. In §4.2, The L-bit MUST be cleared in the copy of the packet that a node sends back towards the source. This makes me wonder, does the looped back packet inherit the IP TTL/hop limit of the parent packet? The description of it as a “copy” makes me think it does. Should this be explicit? NITS: 4. In §5, This draft focuses on three possible use cases of active measurement Should be "this document focuses". 5. Again in §5, A selected data packet that is replicated, and its (possibly truncated) copy is forwarded with one or more IOAM options, while the original packet is forwarded normally, without IOAM options. I think you need to delete the "that" from the first clause? 6. And once again in §5, o IOAM active measurement using replicated data packets: probe packets are created by the encapsulating node by selecting some or all of the en route data packets and replicating them. The 1/N requirement calls into question "or all" above, unless N=1, something you strongly discourage. Although you don't technically *forbid* N=1, I think the inclusion of "or all" creates confusion and you could and should leave it out while still not technically forbidding N=1. 7. In §8, The attacker can potentially leverage the Loopback flag for a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, as multiple devices send looped-back copies of a packet to a single source. The use of "source" is odd here. By the nature of an attack, the looped-back copies wouldn't be targeted at the actual source of the packets. Possibly "target" or even "victim"? |
2022-06-29
|
09 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review. Section 4.*. The same thing appears to be said twice, but with different normative … [Ballot comment] Thank you to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review. Section 4.*. The same thing appears to be said twice, but with different normative language: -- Section 4 Loopback can be used only if a return path from transit nodes and destination nodes towards the source (encapsulating node) exists.” -- Section 4.1. The loopback flag MUST NOT be set if it is not guaranteed that there is a return path from each of the IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating nodes, or if the encapsulating node's identity is not available in the encapsulation header. ** Section 4.4. In either case, when the packet reaches the IOAM boundary its IOAM encapsulation is removed, preventing IOAM information from leaking out from the IOAM domain. Isn’t it more than removing the IOAM encapsulation? Wouldn’t the packet just be dropped at that point since it is a loop back packet with no place to go? ** Section 5. How does a deencapsulating node distinguish between the two use cases of “IOAM active measurement using probe packets within the IOAM domain” and “IOAM active measurement using replicated data packets”? Specifically, how does the deencapsulating know it is a getting a probe packet vs. a replicated packet? |
2022-06-29
|
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot discuss] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some … [Ballot discuss] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address as it is about clarifications), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Thanks to Pascal Thubert for his internet directorate review at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09-intdir-telechat-thubert-2022-06-28/ (please consider Pascal's comments as mine). Special thanks to Tommy Pauly for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Section 4.2 which address `The address of the node performing the copy operation` is confusing in the case of multiple interfaces (typical for a transit device BTW)... Which address should be used ? If the packet was received through an interface with a global address, then this should be the obvious choice or a loopback interface or ??? ### Section 4.2 just truncation ? ``` The copy is also truncated, i.e., any payload that resides after the IOAM option(s) is removed before transmitting the looped back packet back towards the encapsulating node. ``` It is unclear what happens to the IPv6 Next header field... Should the IP header length field be modified ? ### Section 4.2 forwarding ? It is unclear whether the packet is sent back to the source via the received interface or whether the packet is forwarded based on the FIB. ### IANA considerations conflicting text ? In section 4.1: ``` An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. ``` but in section 6: ``` IANA is requested to allocate the following bits in the "IOAM Trace Flags Registry" as follows: Bit 1 "Loopback" (L-bit) Bit 2 "Active" (A-bit) Note that bit 0 is the most significant bit in the Flags Registry. ``` Is it bit 0 or bit 1 ? |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] ## COMMENTS ### "loopback" No need to reply, but every time I read "loopback", I think of the local "loopback interface". The use … [Ballot comment] ## COMMENTS ### "loopback" No need to reply, but every time I read "loopback", I think of the local "loopback interface". The use of "echo" would probably have made my reading easier ;-) ### Section 4.1 ``` An IOAM trace option that has the Loopback flag set MUST have the value '1' in the most significant bit of IOAM-Trace-Type, and '0' in the rest of the bits of IOAM-Trace-Type. ``` Does it prevent further enhancements to Trace types ? ### Section 4.1.1 "SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity" but this recommendation is only for the encapsulating node while there are nodes / links on the path that may have much more constrained capacity. I suggest to remove this part and replace it by text not refering to encapsulating node interface. ### Section 5 ``` The IOAM options are encapsulated in one of the IOAM encapsulation types, e.g., [I-D.ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh], or [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]. ``` Should this text also appear in the section 4? ### Section 5 capacity In ``` Thus, the rate of the traffic that includes the Active flag rate SHOULD NOT exceed 1/N of the interface capacity on any of the IOAM node's interfaces. ``` Should thie be "IOAM nodes' interfaces" to take into account all IOAM nodes (including transit). ## NITS ### Section 5 s/This draft focuses on three possible use cases/This document focuses on three possible use cases/ ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the area review items that were brought up. |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Pascal Thubert | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Pascal Thubert. Sent review to list. |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification and special thanks to Dr. Bernard Aboba for a very good TSVART early review. |
2022-06-28
|
09 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2022-06-22
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2022-06-21
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Pascal Thubert |
2022-06-21
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Pascal Thubert |
2022-06-21
|
09 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2022-06-20
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2022-06-16
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-06-30 |
2022-06-16
|
09 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2022-06-15
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2022-06-15
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-06-15
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2022-06-15
|
09 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-09.txt |
2022-06-15
|
09 | Tal Mizrahi | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi) |
2022-06-15
|
09 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-15
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-06-30 |
2022-06-14
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Frank Brockners, Tal Mizrahi, Shwetha Bhandari, Barak Gafni, Mickey Spiegel (IESG state changed) |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | Ballot has been issued |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | Created "Approve" ballot |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2022-06-14
|
08 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2022-06-14
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2022-06-12
|
08 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2022-06-12
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2022-06-12
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2022-06-06
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2022-06-06
|
08 | Michelle Thangtamsatid | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the IOAM Trace-Flags registry on the In Situ OAM (IOAM) registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/ two new registrations will be made as follows: Bit: 1 Name: Loopback (L-bit) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Bit: 2 Name: Active (A-bit) Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, Michelle Thangtamsatid IANA Services Specialist |
2022-06-02
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2022-06-02
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-14): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tpauly@apple.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-06-14): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tpauly@apple.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Measurement WG (ippm) to consider the following document: - 'In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-06-14. 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 In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) collects operational and telemetry information in packets while they traverse a path between two points in the network. This document defines two new flags in the IOAM Trace Option headers, specifically the Loopback and Active flags. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Martin Duke | Last call was requested |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Martin Duke | Last call announcement was generated |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Martin Duke | Ballot approval text was generated |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was generated |
2022-05-31
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2022-05-31
|
08 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2022-05-29
|
08 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Carlos Pignataro, Ramesh Sivakolundu, Aviv Kfir, Jennifer Lemon (IESG state changed) |
2022-05-29
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2022-05-29
|
08 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08.txt |
2022-05-29
|
08 | Tal Mizrahi | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi) |
2022-05-29
|
08 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-08
|
07 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Frank Brockners, Carlos Pignataro, Tal Mizrahi, Shwetha Bhandari, Barak Gafni, Ramesh Sivakolundu, Aviv Kfir, Mickey Spiegel, Jennifer Lemon (IESG … Changed action holders to Martin Duke, Frank Brockners, Carlos Pignataro, Tal Mizrahi, Shwetha Bhandari, Barak Gafni, Ramesh Sivakolundu, Aviv Kfir, Mickey Spiegel, Jennifer Lemon (IESG state changed) |
2022-04-08
|
07 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2022-03-01
|
07 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | 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 1 November 2019. (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. This is appropriate given that this document defines an extension to the IOAM proposed standard. This is indicated on the header. (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 extends the IOAM data Trace Option header to include two new flags: one to request a loopback packet from a measurement node, and one to indicate that a packet is "active" measurement, and doesn't need to be forwarded. Working Group Summary: This document has been an important way to extend the IOAM protocol, and has been in progress for several years. It did have significant discussion about the safety to avoid amplification attacks, and during development the "direct export" mode was peeled off into a separate document. The main work of the WG on this document over the past year has been to work on the security considerations to put bounds on the use of the flags. The WG did come to consensus, however. Document Quality: The document does have input and implementation support from many vendors. One minor issue that the shepherd notes is that there are too many authors on the document, but the authors could not agree to remove anyone. This may be a concern for being able to get responses during AUTH48, etc. Personnel: Tommy Pauly is the document shepherd. Martin Duke is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I've reviewed this document several times during its development, and I believe it is now ready to progress, based on WG consensus. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? We received SECDIR and TSVART reviews, which were valuable. The WG did also spend a good amount of time reviewing the document in detail. (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 loopback flag needed security review (which it did receive). (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. The only concern the shepherd has is around the number of authors, as noted above. (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, the authors confirmed that any appropriate IPR disclosures where filed. (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 was disclosed. (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 consensus is broad, with both the IOAM and other core participants reviewing and supporting the work. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable (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 (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 8126). This document adds to values to the IOAM Trace Flags Registry, for which the added data looks correct. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342? No YANG module |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | 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 1 November 2019. (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. This is appropriate given that this document defines an extension to the IOAM proposed standard. This is indicated on the header. (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 extends the IOAM data Trace Option header to include two new flags: one to request a loopback packet from a measurement node, and one to indicate that a packet is "active" measurement, and doesn't need to be forwarded. Working Group Summary: This document has been an important way to extend the IOAM protocol, and has been in progress for several years. It did have significant discussion about the safety to avoid amplification attacks, and during development the "direct export" mode was peeled off into a separate document. The main work of the WG on this document over the past year has been to work on the security considerations to put bounds on the use of the flags. The WG did come to consensus, however. Document Quality: The document does have input and implementation support from many vendors. One minor issue that the shepherd notes is that there are too many authors on the document, but the authors could not agree to remove anyone. This may be a concern for being able to get responses during AUTH48, etc. Personnel: Tommy Pauly is the document shepherd. Martin Duke is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I've reviewed this document several times during its development, and I believe it is now ready to progress, based on WG consensus. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? We received SECDIR and TSVART reviews, which were valuable. The WG did also spend a good amount of time reviewing the document in detail. (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 loopback flag needed security review (which it did receive). (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. The only concern the shepherd has is around the number of authors, as noted above. (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, the authors confirmed that any appropriate IPR disclosures where filed. (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 was disclosed. (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 consensus is broad, with both the IOAM and other core participants reviewing and supporting the work. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits found (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable (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 (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 8126). This document adds to values to the IOAM Trace Flags Registry, for which the added data looks correct. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. Not applicable. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) 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 RFC8342? No YANG module |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-03-01
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2021-12-15
|
07 | Tommy Pauly | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2021-10-13
|
07 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-07.txt |
2021-10-13
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-13
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aviv Kfir , Barak Gafni , Carlos Pignataro , Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Mickey Spiegel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aviv Kfir , Barak Gafni , Carlos Pignataro , Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Mickey Spiegel , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , ippm-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-10-13
|
07 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-12
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | Notification list changed to tpauly@apple.com because the document shepherd was set |
2021-10-12
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | Document shepherd changed to Tommy Pauly |
2021-10-08
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2021-10-08
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2021-09-30
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2021-09-22
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2021-09-02
|
06 | Bernard Aboba | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Bernard Aboba. Sent review to list. |
2021-09-02
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2021-09-02
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2021-08-31
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Bernard Aboba |
2021-08-31
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Bernard Aboba |
2021-08-30
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-08-30
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | Requested Early review by TSVART |
2021-08-30
|
06 | Tommy Pauly | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2021-08-28
|
06 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-06.txt |
2021-08-28
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi) |
2021-08-28
|
06 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-25
|
05 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-05.txt |
2021-07-25
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Tal Mizrahi) |
2021-07-25
|
05 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-17
|
04 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-04.txt |
2021-02-17
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-17
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aviv Kfir , Barak Gafni , Carlos Pignataro , Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Mickey Spiegel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aviv Kfir , Barak Gafni , Carlos Pignataro , Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Mickey Spiegel , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , ippm-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-02-17
|
04 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-26
|
03 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-03.txt |
2020-10-26
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-26
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni , Mickey Spiegel , Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Tal Mizrahi , Shwetha Bhandari … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Barak Gafni , Mickey Spiegel , Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Tal Mizrahi , Shwetha Bhandari , Aviv Kfir , Carlos Pignataro , Ramesh Sivakolundu |
2020-10-26
|
03 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-27
|
02 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-02.txt |
2020-07-27
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-27
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners , Barak Gafni , Jennifer Lemon , Tal Mizrahi , Carlos Pignataro , Mickey Spiegel … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners , Barak Gafni , Jennifer Lemon , Tal Mizrahi , Carlos Pignataro , Mickey Spiegel , Ramesh Sivakolundu , Shwetha Bhandari , Aviv Kfir |
2020-07-27
|
02 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2020-01-26
|
01 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-01.txt |
2020-01-26
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-01-26
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Aviv Kfir , Mickey Spiegel , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Frank Brockners , Jennifer Lemon , Aviv Kfir , Mickey Spiegel , Shwetha Bhandari , Tal Mizrahi , Carlos Pignataro , Barak Gafni , Ramesh Sivakolundu |
2020-01-26
|
01 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-12
|
00 | Tommy Pauly | This document now replaces draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags instead of None |
2019-10-12
|
00 | Tal Mizrahi | New version available: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-00.txt |
2019-10-12
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-10-12
|
00 | Tal Mizrahi | Set submitter to "Tal Mizrahi ", replaces to draft-mizrahi-ippm-ioam-flags and sent approval email to group chairs: ippm-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-10-12
|
00 | Tal Mizrahi | Uploaded new revision |