Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-25
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JaMPmkn28HfYzyHMA48Hdp53s9Y/ |
|
2022-04-25
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Sharon Barkai, Alvaro Retana, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, Vina Ermagan, Mohamed Boucadair, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-04-25
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2022-04-25
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2022-04-25
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-04-25
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (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? This document is targeting "Experimental" status. It is the proper type of RFC since the mechanism proposed is relatively recent and more experimental deployment knowledge is desirable. The RFC type is clearly indicated in the title page 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 propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub) mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly notified when changes actually take place. Working Group Summary: The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has Nits". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/ Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> (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 reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable. I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have no concerns. (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 broader review is required for this document (other than the usual area reviews). (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. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document. (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 disclosures have been filed concerning this specific 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 clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (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.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (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. dnits 2.16.05 tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (June 28, 2021) is 9 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference. (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? The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue. (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. There are no downward normative references. (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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (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). The document has two IANA actions: 1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by allocating a new bit as follows: +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit | +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ 2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and populated as follows: +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ | Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description | | Name | | Position | | +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ | N | map-request-N | 1 | Notification-Requested | | | | | Bit | +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ (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 expert review for future allocations is required. (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. The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. (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? The document does not contain any YANG module. |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
|
2021-07-19
|
09 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (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? This document is targeting "Experimental" status. It is the proper type of RFC since the mechanism proposed is relatively recent and more experimental deployment knowledge is desirable. The RFC type is clearly indicated in the title page 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 propose an extension to the LISP Control Plane. The LISP control Plane is based on a Request/Reply mechanism that queries the mapping system when necessary (e.g., new flow necessitate a new mapping or existing mapping changes). This document defines a Publication/Subscription (PubSub) mechanism, so that LISP tunnel routers interested in specific mappings can subscribe to any change that concerns those mappings and be promptly notified when changes actually take place. Working Group Summary: The document was first published in 2015, due to other priorities in the working group the document has been adopted in 2018. The WG as a whole was supporting this document and considered PubSub an important feature to be added to the LISP Control Plane. Consensus was checked on the mailing list upon request from the authors and after a SECDIR review in January 2021. The document that was approved during WG Last Call is -08. The document was parked (like other documents) in order to give priority to the main LISP specifications. During the shepherd's review I have asked few editorial modification to improve the clarity of the document. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? Version -06 of the document had a SECDIR early review resulted in "Has Nits". Details are available on the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06-secdir-early-lonvick-2020-10-08/ Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> (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 reviewed carefully the document. The text is clear and understandable. I have checked the mailing list publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits which is clean and the output for the -09 version of the document is provided on point 11. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have no concerns. (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 broader review is required for this document (other than the usual area reviews). (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. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. No author is aware of any IPR related to content of this document. (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 disclosures have been filed concerning this specific 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 clear consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understand and agree with it. (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.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (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. dnits 2.16.05 tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (June 28, 2021) is 9 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? The document contains only normative references and they are all the right type of reference. (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? The document reference [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis, both of which are in the RFC Editor queue. (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. There are no downward normative references. (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 existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (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). The document has two IANA actions: 1. Update the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry by allocating a new bit as follows: +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ | I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit | +-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+ 2. Creating a new sub-registry entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" and populated as follows: +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ | Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description | | Name | | Position | | +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ | N | map-request-N | 1 | Notification-Requested | | | | | Bit | +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ (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 expert review for future allocations is required. (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. The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. (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? The document does not contain any YANG module. |
|
2021-06-28
|
09 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt |
|
2021-06-28
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-06-28
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, AlbertoRodriguezNatal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai < … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, AlbertoRodriguezNatal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-06-28
|
09 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-02-03
|
08 | Luigi Iannone | Notification list changed to ggx@gigix.net because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-02-03
|
08 | Luigi Iannone | Document shepherd changed to Luigi Iannone |
|
2021-02-03
|
08 | Luigi Iannone | Started WG LC on 13 January |
|
2021-02-03
|
08 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2021-02-02
|
08 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-08.txt |
|
2021-02-02
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-02-02
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-02-02
|
08 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-01-08
|
07 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-07.txt |
|
2021-01-08
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-01-08
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-01-08
|
07 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-18
|
06 | Luigi Iannone | Added to session: IETF-109: lisp Thu-1200 |
|
2020-10-08
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
|
2020-10-01
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
|
2020-09-24
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2020-09-24
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2020-09-17
|
06 | Joel Halpern | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
|
2020-07-10
|
06 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06.txt |
|
2020-07-10
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-10
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@cnam.fr>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com>, Johnson Leong <johnsonleong@gmail.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> |
|
2020-07-10
|
06 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-03-18
|
05 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-05.txt |
|
2020-03-18
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-03-18
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Stefano Secci … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@cnam.fr>, Johnson Leong <joleong@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Sharon Barkai <sharon.barkai@getnexar.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2020-03-18
|
05 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-03-14
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2019-09-11
|
04 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-04.txt |
|
2019-09-11
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-09-11
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@cnam.fr>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@cnam.fr>, Johnson Leong <joleong@cisco.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Sharon Barkai <sharon@fermicloud.io>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> |
|
2019-09-11
|
04 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-03-11
|
03 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-03.txt |
|
2019-03-11
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-03-11
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Stefano Secci … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@cnam.fr>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Johnson Leong <joleong@cisco.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Sharon Barkai <sharon@fermicloud.io>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> |
|
2019-03-11
|
03 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-11-03
|
02 | Luigi Iannone | Added to session: IETF-103: lisp Mon-0900 |
|
2018-11-03
|
02 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-02.txt |
|
2018-11-03
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-11-03
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, Johnson Leong <joleong@cisco.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Sharon Barkai <sharon@fermicloud.io>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> |
|
2018-11-03
|
02 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-10-04
|
01 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-01.txt |
|
2018-10-04
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-10-04
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Johnson Leong … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Johnson Leong <joleong@cisco.com>, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Sharon Barkai <sharon@fermicloud.io>, Christian Jacquenet <christian.jacquenet@orange.com>, Stefano Secci <stefano.secci@lip6.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> |
|
2018-10-04
|
01 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-04-25
|
00 | Joel Halpern | This document now replaces draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub instead of None |
|
2018-04-25
|
00 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-00.txt |
|
2018-04-25
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2018-04-25
|
00 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Set submitter to "Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <natal@cisco.com>", replaces to draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub and sent approval email to group chairs: lisp-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2018-04-25
|
00 | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | Uploaded new revision |