IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-03-14
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-02-26
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-01-25
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-12-21
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-05.txt |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Qin Wu , David Ward , Spencer Giacalone , John Drake , Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi |
2018-12-20
|
05 | Les Ginsberg | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-20
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-12-20
|
04 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2018-12-20
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5671 This seems like a straightforward document. Looking at S 14, I see the following "The following … [Ballot comment] Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5671 This seems like a straightforward document. Looking at S 14, I see the following "The following people contributed substantially to the content of this document and should be considered co-authors". Is this just an artifact of the 5 author limit? Perhaps we should make an exception. COMMENTS S 4.1. > > A bit: The A bit represents the Anomalous (A) bit. The A bit is set > when the measured value of this parameter exceeds its configured > maximum threshold. The A bit is cleared when the measured value > falls below its configured reuse threshold. If the A bit is clear, > the sub-TLV represents steady-state link performance. Just to be clear, I have no way of knowing remotely what the threshold is, right? S 4.2. > value (in microseconds) over a configurable interval, encoded as an > integer value. > > Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of an offset value > (in microseconds) to be added to the measured delay value, to > facilitate the communication of operator-specific delay constraints. I'm probably missing something, but I don't think I understand the purpose of this. Would you mind adding a sentence or two about how you would use this offset? S 4.3. > > RESERVED: This field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 > when sent and MUST be ignored when received. > > Delay Variation: This 24-bit field carries the average link delay > variation over a configurable interval in microseconds, encoded as an So the peer has no idea of what that interval is, right? |
2018-12-20
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-12-20
|
04 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] The nice tidy diff against RFC 7810 and description in Appendix A made this document very easy to review; thank you! That said, … [Ballot comment] The nice tidy diff against RFC 7810 and description in Appendix A made this document very easy to review; thank you! That said, I think that there are some lingering factual errors that will require some text changes; in particular, relating to the IANA registrations. E.g,. Section 2 shouldn't say "this document registers new IS-IS TE sub-TLVs" and "this document registers several sub-TLVs", since the sub-TLVs are not new. Similarly, one could make a case that the IANA considerations should request for IANA to update the registrations for the indicated sub-TLVs to point to this document instead of RFC 7810. (I'm still balloting No Objection and not Discuss, because I trust the responsible AD to make the right thing happen.) |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] * Backward compatibility There is text in Appendix A that provides guidance to implementers on how to handle TLVs with length 5 from … [Ballot comment] * Backward compatibility There is text in Appendix A that provides guidance to implementers on how to handle TLVs with length 5 from RFC7810. I think this would be much more helpful inside the main body of the document. I was wondering how the backward compatibility was handled until I read through the Appendix that lists the *diffs*. |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Why does this need to least more than the usual 5 authors, especially since there is already a contributors section that says the … [Ballot comment] Why does this need to least more than the usual 5 authors, especially since there is already a contributors section that says the entries should be treated as co-authors? |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I do have a question and a suggestion: 1: From the shepherd writeup: (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate … [Ballot comment] I do have a question and a suggestion: 1: From the shepherd writeup: (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. Pending Response at WG adoption: Authors: S Giacolone, D Ward Contributors: A Atlas, C Filsfils There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC. --- I'm not sure I really understand what happened, and if they ever replied - I'll trust that the AD did the right thing. 2: The abstract says: This document obsoletes RFC 7810. Once this is published it won't be clear that this is a -bis. It might be useful to include something like: This document obsoletes RFC 7810 (see the Appendix for details). (if the RFC editor will allow it that is :-)) I also agree with Mirja's comments. |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-12-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-12-18
|
04 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-04.txt |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-18
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Qin Wu , David Ward , Spencer Giacalone , John Drake , Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi |
2018-12-18
|
04 | Les Ginsberg | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-18
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] This is well written document, thank you. One small thing: 4.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV Residual Bandwidth: This field carries the residual … [Ballot comment] This is well written document, thank you. One small thing: 4.5. Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth Sub-TLV Residual Bandwidth: This field carries the residual bandwidth on a link, forwarding adjacency [RFC4206], or bundled link in IEEE floating-point format with units of bytes per second. Please add a Normative reference to the IEEE document. |
2018-12-18
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-12-17
|
03 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-12-17
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-12-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] In section 13 it seems a little awkward to reference the "first version" and "second version" of the document since they will be … [Ballot comment] In section 13 it seems a little awkward to reference the "first version" and "second version" of the document since they will be published with different RFC numbers. Might be clearer to say RFC 7810 in the first instance and "this document" in the second instance. |
2018-12-17
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-12-14
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-12-14
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Based on the TSV-ART review (Thanks Yoshi!) and the information provided in the shepherd write-up, I understand that this document intends to "fix" … [Ballot comment] Based on the TSV-ART review (Thanks Yoshi!) and the information provided in the shepherd write-up, I understand that this document intends to "fix" a specific errata. However, there are IPPM RFCs for each of these metrics that provide further insights on how the calculate them correctly, e.g. rfc3393 IP Packet Delay Variation. I will not block publication on this doc but I would still welcome and recommend if the respective references could be added to provide at least some guidance instead of just declaring calculation out of scope. |
2018-12-14
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-12-13
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-12-20 |
2018-12-13
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-12-13
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot has been issued |
2018-12-13
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-12-13
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-12-13
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-12-12
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-12-11
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2018-12-11
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-12-11
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. In the Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS reachability, IS Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, inter-AS reachability information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLVs) registry on the IS-IS TLV Codepoints registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/ There are existing registrations as follows: Type Description ---------------------------------------------------- 33 Unidirectional Link Delay 34 Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay 35 Unidirectional Delay Variation 36 Unidirectional Link Loss 37 Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth 38 Unidirectional Available Bandwidth 39 Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth IANA Question --> Should the reference for each of these existing registrations be changed to [ RFC-to-be ]? IANA Question --> Should any of the parameters associated with the existing registrations be changed in any way? The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2018-12-10
|
03 | Roman Danyliw | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Roman Danyliw. |
2018-12-09
|
03 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2018-12-05
|
03 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida. Sent review to list. |
2018-12-03
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2018-12-03
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2018-12-03
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida |
2018-12-03
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida |
2018-11-29
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2018-11-29
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2018-11-29
|
03 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-03.txt |
2018-11-29
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-29
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Qin Wu , David Ward , Spencer Giacalone , John Drake , Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi |
2018-11-29
|
03 | Les Ginsberg | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-29
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Roman Danyliw |
2018-11-29
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Roman Danyliw |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-12): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ketant@cisco.com, Ketan Talaulikar , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-12): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: ketant@cisco.com, Ketan Talaulikar , lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Link State Routing WG (lsr) to consider the following document: - 'IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions' 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 2018-12-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network- performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data-path selection as other metrics. This document describes extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions (RFC 5305) such that network-performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using IS-IS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path-selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network-performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. This document obsoletes RFC 7810. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3257/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3259/ |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call was requested |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/92-08uCr6-ctnRU9i3FHA-ucFEw Dear authors: Thanks for taking on this work!! I have just a couple of comments. (1) There are … === AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/92-08uCr6-ctnRU9i3FHA-ucFEw Dear authors: Thanks for taking on this work!! I have just a couple of comments. (1) There are too many authors in the front page. I know that the list was cut prior to rfc7810 being processed, and that Les was added to hold the pen on this revision, so I'll let this one proceed. Just one thing: please group the authors by affiliation (which will reduce the size of the header). (2) Both rfc7471 and rfc7810 can be Informative references. (3) There's an active thread related to the definition of Available Bandwidth [1]. Please keep an eye on it and participate as needed. I don't think the ongoing discussion is a showstopper at this point. I am starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/zOdpuIbCViJToCsC9mNnRmoEiQw |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-11-28
|
02 | Alvaro Retana | Notification list changed to Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com from Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com> |
2018-11-05
|
02 | Acee Lindem | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This RFC is Standards Track and it would obsolete an existing RFC 7810 which is Standards Track once published. (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 extensions to IS-IS Traffic Engineering Extensions (RFC5305) such that network performance information can be distributed and collected in a scalable fashion. The information distributed using ISIS TE Metric Extensions can then be used to make path selection decisions based on network performance. Note that this document only covers the mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed. The mechanisms for measuring network performance or acting on that information, once distributed, are outside the scope of this document. Working Group Summary This bis draft update to RFC7810 was created out of an errata submitted that pointed out errors in the definition of certain bandwidth related sub-TLVs. There was a quick and unanimous decision to address this error by publishing this bis update. There have been much discusson as to how these metrics would be collected and how they will be used when reviewing RFC7810. A similar discussion also took place during the review of this bis draft that replaces RFC7810. On both occassions, these topics were deemed to be out of scope. During RFC7810 review, there was also concern for potential overhead of collecting and flooding these metrics. In response, the RFC7810 contains guidance as to how often the measurements should be collected and flooded. Additionally, the RFC7810 recommends configuration to control measurement usage and the thresholds for advertisement. All of these aspects are unchanged in the bis draft update. Document Quality The RFC7810 published over two years ago has at least two known implementations. There is no change to the technical solution in this update. The updated bis draft has identical content to RFC7810 except for the changes for fixing of the error in encoding and highlighting the changes in the appendix. Personnel Ketan Talaulikar is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed each revision of the document and followed the discussion on the LSR mailing list. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Pending Response at WG adoption: Authors: S Giacolone, D Ward Contributors: A Atlas, C Filsfils There was no IPR poll done during/after WGLC. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Two IPRs were disclosed against RFC 7810 as seen below https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions These are also inherited by this bis update to that document. However, they are not currently reflecting on this document and this needs to be fixed/updated. This IPR has been shared during adoption call and discussion and there were no objections. (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 is consensus within the WG to progress this 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 (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits pending (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? None that are not ready or unclear (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. None (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 will obsolete RFC 7810. This is clarified in the title page and also changes described in the Appendix section. (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 IANA allocations made via RFC 7810 are unchanged and this document does not bring in any new considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not Applicable |
2018-11-05
|
02 | Acee Lindem | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
2018-11-05
|
02 | Acee Lindem | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2018-11-05
|
02 | Acee Lindem | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-11-05
|
02 | Acee Lindem | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-09-03
|
02 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02.txt |
2018-09-03
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-03
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Qin Wu , David Ward , Spencer Giacalone , John Drake , Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi |
2018-09-03
|
02 | Les Ginsberg | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-17
|
Jasmine Magallanes | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis | |
2018-08-14
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis | |
2018-07-24
|
01 | Acee Lindem | Update to reflect LSR Working Group adoption. |
2018-07-24
|
01 | Acee Lindem | This document now replaces draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis instead of None |
2018-07-24
|
01 | Ketan Talaulikar | Changed document writeup |
2018-07-17
|
01 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-01.txt |
2018-07-17
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-17
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Qin Wu , David Ward , Spencer Giacalone , John Drake , Les Ginsberg , Stefano Previdi |
2018-07-17
|
01 | Les Ginsberg | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-19
|
00 | Acee Lindem | Notification list changed to Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com> |
2018-06-19
|
00 | Acee Lindem | Document shepherd changed to Ketan Talaulikar |
2018-05-23
|
00 | Christian Hopps | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-05-23
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-05-23
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00.txt |
2018-04-25
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Les Ginsberg | Set submitter to "Les Ginsberg ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-04-25
|
00 | Les Ginsberg | Uploaded new revision |