Encoding Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-22
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-01-12
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-01-04
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-12-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-12-10
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2014-12-10
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2014-12-09
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-12-09
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2014-12-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2014-12-02
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-12-01
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-12-01
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-12-01
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-11-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-11-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-11-27
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-11-26
|
10 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-10.txt |
2014-11-26
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares. |
2014-11-25
|
09 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-09.txt |
2014-11-25
|
08 | Eric Rosen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-11-25
|
08 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-08.txt |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] I want to recommend the approval of this document, but just had a minor issue that I wanted clarified. This came from the … [Ballot comment] I want to recommend the approval of this document, but just had a minor issue that I wanted clarified. This came from the Gen-ART review from Meral. In Section 5, the mLDP range and the reserved ranges overlap. Is this intentional or a mistake? |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] I want to recommend the approval of this document, but just had a minor issue that I wanted clarified. This came from the … [Ballot discuss] I want to recommend the approval of this document, but just had a minor issue that I wanted clarified. This came from the Gen-ART review from Meral. In Section 5, the mLDP range and the reserved ranges overlap. Is this intentional or a mistake? |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-11-25
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-11-24
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-11-21
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-11-20
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-11-17
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2014-11-17
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2014-10-30
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2014-10-28
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-10-28
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Notification list changed to l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri@tools.ietf.org, erosen@juniper.net from l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri@tools.ietf.org |
2014-10-28
|
06 | Meral Shirazipour | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour. |
2014-10-27
|
07 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-07.txt |
2014-10-27
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-10-25
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-11-25 |
2014-10-22
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Changed field(s): group,abstract |
2014-10-21
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: QUESTION: where should we create this new registry? If it's being created at a new URL, what's the webpage title/category? NOTE: Rather than using the phrase "Reserved (not to be assigned)," IANA strongly prefers to use the RFC 5226 "Reserved." The former appears to imply that values marked "Reserved" in other registries are available for assignment, which is not the case. IANA understands that this document requires a single action. Upon approval, IANA will create the following registry: BGP MCAST-VPN Route Types Reference: [RFC-to-be] Registration Procedure(s): Standards Action Note: In general, whenever an assignment is requested from this registry, two codepoints should be requested at the same time: one from the Generic/PIM range and one from the mLDP range. The two codepoints should have the same low-order 5 bits. If one of the two codepoints is not actually needed, it should be marked "Reserved" [RFC5226]. Range 0x01-0x3f: Generic/PIM range Range 0x41-0x7f: mLDP range Value Meaning Reference -----------------+-----------------------------+--------------------- 0x00 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] 0x01 Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x02 Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x03 S-PMSI A-D route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x04 Leaf A-D route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x05 Source Active A-D route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x06 Shared Tree Join route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x07 Source Tree Join route RFC 6514, [ RFC-to-be ] 0x08 - 0x3f Unassigned (Generic/PIM range) [ RFC-to-be ] 0x40 - 0x42 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] 0x43 S-PMSI A-D route for C-multicast mLDP [ RFC-to-be ] 0x44 Leaf A-D route for C-multicast mLDP [ RFC-to-be ] 0x45 - 0x46 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] 0x47 Source Tree Join route for C-multicast mLDP [ RFC-to-be ] 0x48 - 0x7f Unassigned (mLDP range) [ RFC-to-be ] 0x80 - 0xff Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] IANA 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-10-19
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06 (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 requested status is Proposed Standard. The Document is a protocol specification which requires the assignment of code points by the IANA, as well as the creation of a "Standards Action" registry for those code points. This justifies the type of RFC being requested. The requested status is indicated in 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 Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support customers who use the Multicast Extensions to Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances. This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions. Working Group Summary No controversy around this Document which provides a simple solution to address a limitation of RFC 6514. Document Quality There are no known implementation/implementation plans. The lack of implementation/implementation plan for a Proposed Standard might raise the question of the need for such document or at least of the timeliness for requesting its publication. The Document in fact addresses a limitation in RFC 6514 but at the same time asks for the creation of a registry that does not exist and the creation of which should have been requested by RFC 6514. The creation of such registery is important to clearly set the possible ranges and allocation policies, avoiding future conflicts in the use of code-points encoded on the wire. The Document has been reviewed by a few experts. The Document Shepherd also reviewed several times the Document. Personnel Martin Vigoureux, L3VPN co-chair is the Document Shepherd Adrian Farrel is the Responsible (Routing) Area Director (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has done an in-depth review of the Document which led to clarifications and enhancements as part of the WG Last Call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern. Although this document has been presented at several IETF meetings, there hasn't been discussion on the list concerning this Document. Yet, this Document addresses a quite specific use case which was incorrectly covered by the base specification (RFC 6514) and does so by proposing a simple solution. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No need for such particular review (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concern (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure exists in relation to this Document (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? There has been a little number of expressions of support at the time of the WG LC (more at the time of WG adoption). This however does not reflect the value of the Document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such extreme position was expressed. (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. ID nits check is clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (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? All Normative references are published RFCs (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 downward reference (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. Yes. This Document updates RFC 6514. This is suggested in the Abstract and clearly stated in the Introduction. Motivations for the update are also given in the Document (See Section 2. Why This Document is Needed) (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). The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed the IANA section so that it meets as best as possible the expectations set by RFC 5226. The IANA section is consistent with the corpus of the Document. The name of the requested registry is correctly given as well as its "place" in the overall IANA protocol registries. The registry has all the initial content correctly defined. Allocation policy is specified. Guidelines for future allocations are also given. (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. The defined registry does not require Expert Review (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such section so no such review performed. |
2014-10-16
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2014-10-16
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour |
2014-10-16
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2014-10-16
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2014-10-16
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2014-10-16
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Encoding mLDP FECs in the … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Encoding mLDP FECs in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks WG (l3vpn) to consider the following document: - 'Encoding mLDP FECs in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes' 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 2014-10-27. 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 Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support customers who use the Multicast Extensions to Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances. This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-13
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-10-12
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-09-09
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … As required by RFC 4858, this is the Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06 (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 requested status is Proposed Standard. The Document is a protocol specification which requires the assignment of code points by the IANA, as well as the creation of a "Standards Action" registry for those code points. This justifies the type of RFC being requested. The requested status is indicated in 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 Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support customers who use the Multicast Extensions to Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances. This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions. Working Group Summary No controversy around this Document which provides a simple solution to address a limitation of RFC 6514. Document Quality There are no known implementation/implementation plans. The Document has been reviewed by a few experts. The Document Shepherd also reviewed several times the Document. Personnel Martin Vigoureux, L3VPN co-chair is the Document Shepherd Adrian Farrel is the Responsible (Routing) Area Director (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has done an in-depth review of the Document which led to clarifications and enhancements as part of the WG Last Call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concern. Although this document has been presented at several IETF meetings, there hasn't been discussion on the list concerning this Document. Yet, this Document addresses a quite specific use case which was incorrectly covered by the base specification (RFC 6514) and does so by proposing a simple solution. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No need for such particular review (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concern (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure exists in relation to this Document (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? There has been a little number of expressions of support at the time of the WG LC (more at the time of WG adoption). This however does not reflect the value of the Document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No such extreme position was expressed. (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. ID nits check is clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (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? All Normative references are published RFCs (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 downward reference (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. Yes. This Document updates RFC 6514. This is suggested in the Abstract and clearly stated in the Introduction. Motivations for the update are also given in the Document (See Section 2. Why This Document is Needed) (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). The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed the IANA section so that it meets as best as possible the expectations set by RFC 5226. The IANA section is consistent with the corpus of the Document. The name of the requested registry is correctly given as well as its "place" in the overall IANA protocol registries. The registry has all the initial content correctly defined. Allocation policy is specified. Guidelines for future allocations are also given. (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. The defined registry does not require Expert Review (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such section so no such review performed. |
2014-09-09
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | State Change Notice email list changed to l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri@tools.ietf.org |
2014-09-09
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2014-09-09
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-09-09
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-09-09
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-09-08
|
06 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-06.txt |
2014-09-08
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Changed document writeup |
2014-09-08
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2014-06-29
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2014-06-29
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-06-27
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-27
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-27
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-03
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-06-03
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Changed document writeup |
2014-06-03
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2014-05-20
|
05 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-05.txt |
2014-01-08
|
04 | Martin Vigoureux | WGLC: 2014-01-06 to 2014-01-20 |
2014-01-08
|
04 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-01-08
|
04 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Morin |
2013-12-02
|
04 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-04.txt |
2013-11-27
|
03 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-03.txt |
2013-11-12
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-02.txt |
2013-05-15
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-01.txt |
2012-11-15
|
00 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-00.txt |