IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP and its Use for IP Traffic Flow Security
draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-12
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-05-13
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2022-05-13
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee |
|
2022-05-10
|
12 | Shawn Emery | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. Sent review to list. |
|
2022-05-06
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
|
2022-05-06
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
|
2022-05-05
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
|
2022-05-05
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bo Wu |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-05-18):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-05-18):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs@ietf.org, ipsec@ietf.org, ipsecme-chairs@ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, rdd@cert.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-12.txt> (IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP and its Use for IP Traffic Flow Security) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document: - 'IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP and its Use for IP Traffic Flow Security' <draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-12.txt> 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 2022-05-18. 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 a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel. The solution allows for congestion control as well as non- constant send-rate usage. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Last call was requested |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Roman Danyliw (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
|
2022-05-04
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | AD Review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/ERHV23FBhLAIo7M_KBe6axalrWc/ |
|
2022-03-24
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard (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 describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel. The solution allows for congestion control as well as non-constant send-rate usage. Working Group Summary: Various aspects of the document were discussed and debated, with multiple revisions incorporating the results. There was no controversy though, and there is good WG consensus. Document Quality: At least one implementation will be open sourced, with interest by others in implementing. There were multiple thorough reviews by experts in the WG. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Tero Kivinen Who is the Responsible Area Director? Roman Danyliw. (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 have reviewed this document several time, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None. This document do cover cross area boundaries, by including congestion control and path mtu issues, but those were reviewed during the transport area review. (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. A transport area review was given, and the resulting comments addressed to the reviewers satisfaction. (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 path mtu and congestion control issues are outside the most of the experts in the WG, thus specific review from the transport area review group was requested and done, and issues found during that was resolved, but there might be other issues missed in those sections, as most of the reviewers in the WG do not have expertise on those issues. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Well reviewed by many active WG members, consensus 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nothing major. There are few figures using [60] style numbers which cause warnings in the idnits references checking system, and one table causing warnings about weird spacing. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 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). All required reservations are made (a notification message state type in IKEv2), and the newly created registry is adequately documented. (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. (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. N/A. (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? N/A. |
|
2022-03-23
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Roman Danyliw |
|
2021-12-07
|
12 | Joseph Touch | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list. |
|
2021-11-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard (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 describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel. The solution allows for congestion control as well as non-constant send-rate usage. Working Group Summary: Various aspects of the document were discussed and debated, with multiple revisions incorporating the results. There was no controversy though, and there is good WG consensus. Document Quality: At least one implementation will be open sourced, with interest by others in implementing. There were multiple thorough reviews by experts in the WG. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Tero Kivinen Who is the Responsible Area Director? Benjamin Kaduk. (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 have reviewed this document several time, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None. This document do cover cross area boundaries, by including congestion control and path mtu issues, but those were reviewed during the transport area review. (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. A transport area review was given, and the resulting comments addressed to the reviewers satisfaction. (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 path mtu and congestion control issues are outside the most of the experts in the WG, thus specific review from the transport area review group was requested and done, and issues found during that was resolved, but there might be other issues missed in those sections, as most of the reviewers in the WG do not have expertise on those issues. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Well reviewed by many active WG members, consensus 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nothing major. There are few figures using [60] style numbers which cause warnings in the idnits references checking system, and one table causing warnings about weird spacing. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 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). All required reservations are made (a notification message state type in IKEv2), and the newly created registry is adequately documented. (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. (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. N/A. (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? N/A. |
|
2021-11-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2021-11-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2021-11-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-11-18
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-11-15
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
|
2021-11-15
|
12 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
|
2021-11-11
|
12 | Yoav Nir | Requested Early review by TSVART |
|
2021-11-08
|
12 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-12.txt |
|
2021-11-08
|
12 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2021-11-08
|
12 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-11-08
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Added to session: IETF-112: ipsecme Mon-1200 |
|
2021-10-24
|
11 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-11.txt |
|
2021-10-24
|
11 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2021-10-24
|
11 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-09-03
|
10 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-10.txt |
|
2021-09-03
|
10 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2021-09-03
|
10 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-07-05
|
09 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-09.txt |
|
2021-07-05
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2021-07-05
|
09 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-04-27
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard (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 describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec tunnel. The solution allows for congestion control as well as non-constant send-rate usage. Working Group Summary: Various aspects of the document were discussed and debated, with multiple revisions incorporating the results. There was no controversy though, and there is good WG consensus. Document Quality: At least one implementation will be open sourced, with interest by others in implementing. There were multiple thorough reviews by experts in the WG. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Tero Kivinen Who is the Responsible Area Director? Benjamin Kaduk. (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 have reviewed this document several time, and I think is ready to be forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None. This document do cover cross area boundaries, by including congestion control and path mtu issues, but those were reviewed during the transport area review. (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. A transport area review was given, and the resulting comments addressed to the reviewers satisfaction. (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 path mtu and congestion control issues are outside the most of the experts in the WG, thus specific review from the transport area review group was requested and done, and issues found during that was resolved, but there might be other issues missed in those sections, as most of the reviewers in the WG do not have expertise on those issues. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (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? Well reviewed by many active WG members, consensus 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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Nothing major. There are few figures using [60] style numbers which cause warnings in the idnits references checking system, and one table causing warnings about weird spacing. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. 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). All required reservations are made (a notification message state type in IKEv2), and the newly created registry is adequately documented. (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. (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. N/A. (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? N/A. |
|
2021-04-27
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Notification list changed to kivinen@iki.fi because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-04-27
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Document shepherd changed to Tero Kivinen |
|
2021-03-30
|
08 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-08.txt |
|
2021-03-30
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-03-30
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> |
|
2021-03-30
|
08 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-08
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2021-03-08
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2021-03-08
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2021-02-22
|
07 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-07.txt |
|
2021-02-22
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2021-02-22
|
07 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-01-24
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2021-01-19
|
06 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-06.txt |
|
2021-01-19
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2021-01-19
|
06 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-19
|
05 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-05.txt |
|
2020-12-19
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2020-12-19
|
05 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-18
|
04 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-04.txt |
|
2020-12-18
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2020-12-18
|
04 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-12-03
|
03 | Joseph Touch | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list. |
|
2020-11-15
|
03 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-03.txt |
|
2020-11-15
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2020-11-15
|
03 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-10
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Added to session: IETF-109: ipsecme Tue-1600 |
|
2020-11-02
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
|
2020-11-02
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
|
2020-11-02
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Requested Early review by TSVART |
|
2020-09-30
|
02 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-02.txt |
|
2020-09-30
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2020-09-30
|
02 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-09-03
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2020-03-02
|
01 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-01.txt |
|
2020-03-02
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-03-02
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> |
|
2020-03-02
|
01 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-16
|
00 | Christian Hopps | This document now replaces draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs instead of None |
|
2019-12-16
|
00 | Christian Hopps | New version available: draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-00.txt |
|
2019-12-16
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Christian Hopps) |
|
2019-12-16
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Uploaded new revision |