Skip to main content

IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery
draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-08-21
09 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-09.txt
2021-08-21
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Qin Wu)
2021-08-21
09 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2021-08-20
08 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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 reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.

(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 support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

All fixed in -08.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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 document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-08-20
08 Acee Lindem Responsible AD changed to John Scudder
2021-08-20
08 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-08-20
08 Acee Lindem IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-08-20
08 Acee Lindem IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-08-20
08 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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 reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.

(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 support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

All fixed in -08.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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 document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-08-20
08 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-08.txt
2021-08-20
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Qin Wu)
2021-08-20
08 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2021-08-19
07 Acee Lindem
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of Proposed Standard.

Yes - Proposed Standard. This document level is required for protocol extension and interoperability for advertisment of OSPF and IS-IS PCE capabilities.

(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 provides extensions to OSPF and IS-IS to advertisement the PCE Security capabilities of the advertising router. These capabilities could than be used for PCE and PC Client authentication.

Working Group Summary:

While this document has been around for some time, there wasn't much discussion until WG last call. During the WG last call, we received comments from more than a half dozen people and these were incorporated into the document. We also got RTG and SEC directorate reviews. The WG last call included both the LSR and PCE WG lists and there were reviewers from both.


Document Quality:

The document is of high quality with all the required reviews. While there aren't any implementations yet, it is a very straight forward extension.

Personnel:

Document Shepherd: Acee Lindem
Responsible AD: John Scudder

(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 reviewed the document multiple times and provided editorial and consistency comments.  The shepherd's review is acknowledged in the draft.

(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?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Yes.

(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 support for publication and absolutely no objactions.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The nits will all be fixed in the next revision.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

None of these are applicable. The YANG model augmentations will be added in a separate draft.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes - an IANA registry was moved and that impacts four RFCs listed in the updated list.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

This document has IANA registrations and these have been the topic of discussion.

(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 document moves the "PCE Capability Flags" registry from "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2) Parameters" to under the IANA Common IGP parameters registry and allocate new bits assignments for the IGP Parameters "Path Computation Element (PCE) Capability Flags" registry.

  This document also creates  a new subregistry called "PCED sub-TLV type indicators" under the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.

N/A

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A
2021-08-17
07 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-07.txt
2021-08-17
07 (System) New version approved
2021-08-17
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Qin WU …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Qiufang Ma <maqiufang1@huawei.com>
2021-08-17
07 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2021-08-17
06 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-08-16
06 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-06.txt
2021-08-16
06 (System) New version approved
2021-08-16
06 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Qin WU …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Qiufang Ma <maqiufang1@huawei.com>
2021-08-16
06 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2021-08-10
05 Ron Bonica Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ron Bonica. Sent review to list.
2021-08-09
05 Haomian Zheng Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': duplicated.
2021-08-09
05 Haomian Zheng Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Withdrawn': duplicated.
2021-08-09
05 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2021-08-09
05 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2021-08-05
05 Yaron Sheffer Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer. Sent review to list.
2021-07-30
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support
2021-07-23
05 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, pce@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, pce@ietf.org
2021-07-23
05 Acee Lindem Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-07-23
05 Acee Lindem Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-07-23
05 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-07-22
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2021-07-22
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2021-07-22
05 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2021-07-21
05 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-07-21
05 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2021-07-21
05 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2021-07-21
05 Acee Lindem Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2021-07-21
05 Acee Lindem IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-04-27
05 Qiufang Ma New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05.txt
2021-04-27
05 (System) New version approved
2021-04-27
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Qin WU …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>, Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Qiufang Ma <maqiufang1@huawei.com>
2021-04-27
05 Qiufang Ma Uploaded new revision
2021-04-24
04 (System) Document has expired
2020-10-21
04 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-04.txt
2020-10-21
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Qin Wu)
2020-10-21
04 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2020-05-03
03 (System) Document has expired
2020-01-24
03 Christian Hopps Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, pce@ietf.org from Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
2019-10-31
03 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-03.txt
2019-10-31
03 (System) New version approved
2019-10-31
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Zitao Wang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Zitao Wang <wangzitao@huawei.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
2019-10-31
03 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2019-09-03
02 Acee Lindem Notification list changed to Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
2019-09-03
02 Acee Lindem Document shepherd changed to Acee Lindem
2019-09-03
02 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-02.txt
2019-09-03
02 (System) New version approved
2019-09-03
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Zitao Wang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Zitao Wang <wangzitao@huawei.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
2019-09-03
02 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2019-07-17
01 Dhruv Dhody Added to session: IETF-105: pce  Thu-1000
2019-06-02
01 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-01.txt
2019-06-02
01 (System) New version approved
2019-06-02
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Zitao Wang …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Zitao Wang <wangzitao@huawei.com>, Diego Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
2019-06-02
01 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision
2019-04-01
00 Yingzhen Qu This document now replaces draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support instead of None
2018-12-04
00 Qin Wu New version available: draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00.txt
2018-12-04
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-12-04
00 Qin Wu Set submitter to "Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: lsr-chairs@ietf.org
2018-12-04
00 Qin Wu Uploaded new revision