Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2025-02-13
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Lou Berger, Bow-Nan Cheng, Don Fedyk, David Wiggins (IESG state changed) |
2025-02-13
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2025-02-07
|
13 | Carlos Pignataro | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version' |
2025-02-07
|
13 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Telechat review by OPSDIR to Tina Tsou was marked no-response |
2025-02-06
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot discuss] Section 5.2 declares a new registry, a range of which is controlled by "Specification Required" rules. RFC 8126, Section 4.6, says: … [Ballot discuss] Section 5.2 declares a new registry, a range of which is controlled by "Specification Required" rules. RFC 8126, Section 4.6, says: As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough understanding of Section 5 is important. Is no such advice in order here? Also, as Roman observed: Should there be a "Reference" column added to this registry? |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot discuss text updated for Murray Kucherawy |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot discuss] Section 5.2 declares a new registry, a range of which is controlled by "Specification Required" rules. RFC 8126, Section 4.6, says: … [Ballot discuss] Section 5.2 declares a new registry, a range of which is controlled by "Specification Required" rules. RFC 8126, Section 4.6, says: As with Expert Review (Section 4.5), clear guidance to the designated expert should be provided when defining the registry, and thorough understanding of Section 5 is important. Is no such advice in order here? |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] Section 5 says: This document requests the assignment of several values by IANA. All assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175 … [Ballot comment] Section 5 says: This document requests the assignment of several values by IANA. All assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175]. But it only creates one registration to an extant registry, right? I would just delete this text. Also about Section 5.2: The presentation here is a little confusing. One of these rows defines a range available for reservation and the rules for such registrations, while all other rows are actual registrations. It might be helpful to take the "Specification Required" row out and turn it into prose. A nit about Section 4: * "... introduces finer grain flow ..." -- s/grain/grained/ ...and one in Appendix A: * "... We morn his passing ..." -- s/morn/mourn/ |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2025-02-05
|
13 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks to David Black for really good review of the document that has lead to more clarity on the classification. I am supporting … [Ballot comment] Thanks to David Black for really good review of the document that has lead to more clarity on the classification. I am supporting Romans's discuss. This specification refers to RFC8126 but does not follows it. |
2025-02-05
|
13 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2025-02-04
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot comment] # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13.txt # … [Ballot comment] # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13.txt # Many thanks to Darren Dukes for the RTGDIR review follow up. # Detailed Review # =============== 315 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 316 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 317 | DSCP | MBZ | 318 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 319 320 DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint 321 MBZ: MUST be zero GV> This reads odd. Why the uppercase "MUST" and then all lower case "be zero" instead of "Be Zero". What most the device do when MBZ happens to be not zero? Same MBZ observation applies to line402 of the document. What about the following: " DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint (RFC 2474). MBZ: Must Be Zero MUST be set to zero when transmitted. Receivers MUST ignore this field upon reception. " |
2025-02-04
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot discuss] "Abstract", paragraph 0 > This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange > Protocol (DLEP) to support … [Ballot discuss] "Abstract", paragraph 0 > This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange > Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification. Traffic > classification information identifies traffic flows based on frame/ > packet content such as destination address. The Data Item is defined > in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be mandated in > other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This document > also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are defined > to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification. I would note that both RTGDIR and TSVART's early review of the document had issues with the document. However, I did not see a Last Call or Telechat review of the same. But this could easily have been missed because there are four documents, and some of these issues could have been debated as part of the other documents. Even otherwise, there is no e-mail thread that I could find that discusses how the issues were resolved. In either case, it would be nice to know from the Shepherd that the issues raised by David Black were addressed, and more specifically how they were addressed. |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot comment] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or … [Ballot comment] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 2, paragraph 2 > fic Classification Data Item This sections defines the Traffic Classification > ^^^^^^^^ Consider using the singular form after the singular determiner "This". Section 6.2, paragraph 1 > ritical to the acceptance of DLEP. We morn his passing on November 23, 2023. > ^^^^^^^ s/morn/mourn/ |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Mahesh Jethanandani | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Mahesh Jethanandani |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] ** Section 5.2 defines a registry which includes code points with an allocation policy of Specification Required. Implicit in policy is the review … [Ballot discuss] ** Section 5.2 defines a registry which includes code points with an allocation policy of Specification Required. Implicit in policy is the review of a designated expert (DE). However, this document does not provide guidance to the DE on what to approve. See Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of RFC8126. |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. Editorial. The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that may be used at the same … [Ballot comment] ** Section 2. Editorial. The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that may be used at the same time for traffic sent from a router to a modem. "Used at the same time" to do what? ** Section 2.1 When an extension requires use of this Data Item the Traffic Classification Data Item SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session Initialization Response Message -- Are “Data Item” and “Traffic Classification Data Item” the same data item? -- What is the alternative to using his Data Item in a Session Initialization Response Message? ** Section 5.2. Should the new registry defined in this section have an additional column which is a reference to a document which provides further details? |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot discuss] I support Deb's DISCUSS Section 2.3.1 It states "After successful validation, the receiver MUST ...", but it does not state what the receiver … [Ballot discuss] I support Deb's DISCUSS Section 2.3.1 It states "After successful validation, the receiver MUST ...", but it does not state what the receiver should do when it fails validation. As the protocol seems to have a window size of 1, my guess is that it MUST sent an error message of some kind so that the other peer can send another/new/different DLEP messages again? |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] The figure in Section 2.1 makes it appear that a Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is 32 bits in size, but Section 2.1.1 shows … [Ballot comment] The figure in Section 2.1 makes it appear that a Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is 32 bits in size, but Section 2.1.1 shows it is variable length of at least 64 bits (again using to to me unknown convention of ":" instead of "~" A field name of "Must be two" is confusing. Normally we write the real name with the value,eg foo (2) |
2025-02-03
|
13 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2025-02-02
|
13 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot discuss] Section 4: The transport layer security recommendations in RFC8175 are largely outdated (it predates TLS1.3, RFC8446). It references RFC 7525 (which has … [Ballot discuss] Section 4: The transport layer security recommendations in RFC8175 are largely outdated (it predates TLS1.3, RFC8446). It references RFC 7525 (which has been obsoleted by RFC 9325) and RFC 5487 which may/may not be relevant today (i.e. it is very old - predating both TLS 1.2, RFC 5746, and TLS1.3). In addition, the link layer security recommendations are similarily outdated. Please address this issue in this draft's Security Considerations. Section 4: I would also like to see documentation of the risk of 'leaking data' into unused (and unvalidated by the receiver) protocol fields. |
2025-02-02
|
13 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot comment] Section 2.1: Data item type field is 16 bits? Please clarify. Section 2.1: Is there an upper limit to the length of the … [Ballot comment] Section 2.1: Data item type field is 16 bits? Please clarify. Section 2.1: Is there an upper limit to the length of the length field (in Section 2.1.1 the length field for the sub data item is a 16 bit unsigned integer)? If not, why not? Section 2.1: Reserved field, why doesn't the router have to validate this (it allows a covert channel if not validated)? Section 2.2: NumDSCPs: How does it work to have a wildcard in this field? Does the entity creating the item not know how many DSCPs there are? Seems odd. Also seems like a way for a third party to add/remove DSCPs. Section 2.3: Length: Same comment as Section 2.1. Is there a total bit length for the field? If not, why not? Section 2.3: NumPCPs: Same comment as Section 2.2 (NumDSCPs). Section 2.3: Pad: Same comment as Section 2.1 (reserved field). Section 3: What is the expected behaviour when either the router or modem don't understand the extensions? Is it treated like a failure? Or are they ignored? Is there a transition strategy where some parts of the system have been updated but others have not? |
2025-02-02
|
13 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2025-01-31
|
13 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2025-01-31
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2025-01-19
|
13 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2025-01-17
|
13 | Shawn Emery | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2025-01-17
|
13 | Shawn Emery | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2025-01-16
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2025-01-08
|
13 | Jenny Bui | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2025-02-06 |
2025-01-08
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Ballot has been issued |
2025-01-08
|
13 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2025-01-08
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2025-01-08
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2025-01-08
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-11-19
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2024-11-19
|
13 | Don Fedyk | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-13.txt |
2024-11-19
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-11-19
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bow-Nan Cheng , David Wiggins , Lou Berger , manet-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-11-19
|
13 | Don Fedyk | Uploaded new revision |
2024-08-12
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2024-08-10
|
12 | Shawn Emery | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-08-10
|
12 | Shawn Emery | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
2024-08-08
|
12 | David Dong | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2024-08-08
|
12 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2024-08-06
|
12 | Darren Dukes | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Darren Dukes. Sent review to list. |
2024-08-06
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-08-05
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-08-05
|
12 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-12. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete. First, in the Data Item Type Values registry on the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters/ a single new data item type value will be registered from the Specification Required range as follows: Type Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: Traffic Classification Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK." Second, a new registry will be created called the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry. The new registry will be located in the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters/ The registration policy for the new registry, as defined by RFC 8126 is: 0 - Reserved 1 - 65407 - Specification Required 65408 - 65534 - Private Use 65535 - Reserved There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Type Code Description Reference 0 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] 1 DiffServ Traffic Classification [ RFC-to-be ] 2 Ethernet Traffic Classification [ RFC-to-be ] 3-65534 Unassigned 65535 Reserved [ RFC-to-be ] We understand that these are the only actions 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. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-07-30
|
12 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tina Tsou. Sent review to list. |
2024-07-26
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
2024-07-25
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2024-07-23
|
12 | David Dong | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-06): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, manet-chairs@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, ronald.intvelt@tno.nl … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-06): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, manet-chairs@ietf.org, manet@ietf.org, ronald.intvelt@tno.nl Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-08-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a new Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Data Item that is used to support traffic classification. Traffic classification information is used to identify traffic flows based on frame/packet content such as destination address. The Data Item is defined in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be mandated in other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This document also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are defined to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Darren Dukes |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Last call was requested |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Jim Guichard | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard |
2024-07-23
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Stan Ratliff, Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2024-07-23
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-12.txt |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Lou Berger | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2024-07-23
|
12 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2024-07-11
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Lou Berger, Stan Ratliff, Bow-Nan Cheng (IESG state changed) |
2024-07-11
|
11 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2024-07-11
|
11 | Jim Guichard | AD review posted === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/qTn9JAeIcWtuPeWsJ5Pv_pv1QJw/ === |
2024-07-10
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2024-07-10
|
11 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2024-06-19
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Bow-Nan Cheng, Stan Ratliff, Lou Berger (IESG state changed) |
2024-06-19
|
11 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being … Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in different documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue have been resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/OmQhM-zMGU2PEJNgTtGLNcsBnQM/ These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and fine-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statements at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/9NNWOL7odZofBoZ4q9Uwya1B6oI/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/itiAXwQ7dQaerG43rTH6SXNiDdY/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/J9EUsx1QPPUz6CwnRu4uEAwa634/ It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. Sadly, David Wiggins passed away in 2023. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no such normative references. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Data Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document requests the creation of a new DLEP IANA registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" and provides three initial registry values. The requested actions in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) have been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The new IANA registry that this document creates (see answer to question 20) does not contain value ranges for future allocation to which the Designated Expert Review policy applies. |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-05-10
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | Responsible AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared. |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being … Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in different documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue have been resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/OmQhM-zMGU2PEJNgTtGLNcsBnQM/ These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and fine-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statements at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/9NNWOL7odZofBoZ4q9Uwya1B6oI/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/itiAXwQ7dQaerG43rTH6SXNiDdY/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/J9EUsx1QPPUz6CwnRu4uEAwa634/ It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. Sadly, David Wiggins passed away in 2023. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no such normative references. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Data Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document requests the creation of a new DLEP IANA registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" and provides three initial registry values. The requested actions in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) have been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The new IANA registry that this document creates (see answer to question 20) does not contain value ranges for future allocation to which the Designated Expert Review policy applies. |
2024-05-10
|
11 | Ronald in 't Velt | Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being … Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in different documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue have been resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and fine-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statements at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/9NNWOL7odZofBoZ4q9Uwya1B6oI/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/itiAXwQ7dQaerG43rTH6SXNiDdY/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/J9EUsx1QPPUz6CwnRu4uEAwa634/ It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. Sadly, David Wiggins passed away in 2023. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no such normative references. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Data Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document requests the creation of a new DLEP IANA registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" and provides three initial registry values. The requested actions in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) have been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The new IANA registry that this document creates (see answer to question 20) does not contain value ranges for future allocation to which the Designated Expert Review policy applies. |
2024-03-18
|
11 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-11.txt |
2024-03-18
|
11 | Tess Chapeta | Posted submission manually |
2024-03-16
|
10 | Ronald in 't Velt | WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in different documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue are being resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ (**as WG participant**) These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and fine-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statements at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/GZPzumdxzHMIGY_zcnT1milVz0w/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/itiAXwQ7dQaerG43rTH6SXNiDdY/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/J9EUsx1QPPUz6CwnRu4uEAwa634/ It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. Sadly, David Wiggins passed away in 2023. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no such normative references. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Data Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document requests the creation of a new DLEP IANA registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" and provides three initial registry values. The requested actions in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) have been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The new IANA registry that this document creates (see answer to question 20) does not contain value ranges for future allocation to which the Designated Expert Review policy applies. WORK IN PROGRESS |
2024-03-04
|
10 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-10.txt |
2024-03-04
|
10 | Tess Chapeta | Posted submission manually |
2024-01-11
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-12-20
|
09 | Ronald in 't Velt | WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in different documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue are being resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ (**as WG participant**) These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and fine-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/GZPzumdxzHMIGY_zcnT1milVz0w/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/itiAXwQ7dQaerG43rTH6SXNiDdY/ (IPR statement by Bow-Nan Cheng is still pending, but his affiliation is the same as that of David Wiggins; it therefore seems unlikely that the former is aware of IPR of which the latter is not aware). It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no such normative references. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Data Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document requests the creation of a new DLEP IANA registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" and provides three initial registry values. The requested actions in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) have been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The new IANA registry that this document creates (see answer to question 20) does not contain value ranges for future allocation to which the Designated Expert Review policy applies. WORK IN PROGRESS |
2023-11-05
|
09 | Ronald in 't Velt | WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, … WORK IN PROGRESS Shepherd writeup on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? This document is part of a cluster of four which together specify a credit-base flow control extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP, RFC8175). The companion documents are: - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension, - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. There was strong consensus early on in the WG that it would be beneficial to have a Flow Control extension to DLEP that is more sophisticated than the Control-Plane-based Pause approach specified in RFC 8651. Most of the remaining discussion revolved around how to best structure and modularize the specification. (See answer to question 2). 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was discussion (rather than controversy) on how the functional elements of credit-based flow control should be distributed over separate documents. Between IETF 100 and IETF 103, the specification went from being contained in a single document to being broken down into four separate ones. Traffic Classification was split off, because it is considered a generic mechanism that can be useful for other purposes than flow control alone. draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was the original monolithic specification, that was reduced to merely defining the Extension Type value after Message and Data Item definitions were moved to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification. Using IEEE 802.1Q fields of Ethernet frames instead of DS fields in IP packets as an alternative way of distinguishing flows made it necessary to define an additional Extension Type value in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. The motivation for having both Extension Type values in different documents is to allow implementers of DLEP to specify exactly which extensions they support by means of RFC numbers. The TSV ART reviewer commented that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension was very light on content and strongly suggested to merge this document into draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension. (At the time, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension had not yet been subjected to TSV ART early review). The WG considered this suggestion around IETF 113 and again at IETF 115, but decided that reasons for the four-way split were still valid and to therefore stick to that structure. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This document's shepherd has no knowledge of existing implementations. Since this document (and its companions) describes an extension to DLEP (RFC 8175), a starting point for an implementation could be the open source DLEP library, to which David Wiggins (one of the authors of this document) is the main contributor: https://github.com/mit-ll/LL-DLEP . There has been some discussion on the mailing list on how to implement the router side of credit-based flow control (in Linux, specifically): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/MPTLhKgaljq1BRdjE_dEk9x1YhI/ Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. A TSV ART Early Review took place. Main concern was the split in three different documents. (See answer to question 2). Some lesser issue are being resolved. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. A RtgDir review still needs to take place. None of the other expert reviews mentioned (MIB Doctor, etc.) apply to this document. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the recommended validation 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 RFC 8342? This document does not contain a YANG module. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. This document contains no formal language. The shepherd has carefully reviewed this draft, as documented at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Knm_a-HXt_5i9xlRAnfp7jhLkds/ (**as WG participant**) These comments have been resolved. Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? Yes. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? Shepherd has not identified any such issues. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Standards Track as indicated on the title page. This document and its companion documents specify a more sophisticated and fine-grained flow control mechanism than the one defined in RFC 8651 (which is a Proposed Standard). Moreover, credit-based flow control is an explicit work item on the WG's charter, whereas Control-Plane-Based Pause (RFC 8651) was not (and was criticized for that reason during IESG review). 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by BCP 78 and BCP 79 have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. See IPR statments at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/GZPzumdxzHMIGY_zcnT1milVz0w/ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/itiAXwQ7dQaerG43rTH6SXNiDdY/ (IPR statement by Bow-Nan Cheng is still pending, but his affiliation is the same as that of David Wiggins; it therefore seems unlikely that the former is aware of IPR of which the latter is not aware). It appears that no IPR is being claimed. 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Implicitly as per question 12 above. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See the idnits tool and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. The document adheres to the naming convention for Internet-Drafts. The document contains all the required sections. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? The shepherd believes the references to be categorized correctly. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All normative references are to RFCs. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967, BCP 97)? If so, list them. There are no downward normative references. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no such normative references. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. This document (together with its companion documents, see answer to question 1) defines an extension to RFC 8175, in the same way as RFC 8629, RFC 8651, RFC 8703 and RFC 8757 do, but it does not change the status of RFC 8175 or any other RFC. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126). This document adds one entry to the existing DLEP Data Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values". This addition is in the range with a "Specification Required" policy. This document requests the creation of a new DLEP IANA registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" and provides three initial registry values. The requested actions in the IANA Considerations Section (section 5) have been found to be consistent with the body of the document. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. The new IANA registry that this document creates (see answer to question 20) does not contain value ranges for future allocation to which the Designated Expert Review policy applies. WORK IN PROGRESS |
2023-11-05
|
09 | Ronald in 't Velt | Notification list changed to ronald.intvelt@tno.nl because the document shepherd was set |
2023-11-05
|
09 | Ronald in 't Velt | Document shepherd changed to Ronald in 't Velt |
2023-07-10
|
09 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-09.txt |
2023-07-10
|
09 | Lou Berger | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2023-07-10
|
09 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-30
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-29
|
08 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-08.txt |
2022-07-29
|
08 | Ronald in 't Velt | New version approved |
2022-07-29
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bow-Nan Cheng , David Wiggins , Lou Berger , manet-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-07-29
|
08 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2022-02-24
|
07 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-07.txt |
2022-02-24
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2022-02-24
|
07 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-30
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-11-19
|
06 | David Black | Request for Early review by TSVART Completed: On the Right Track. Reviewer: David Black. |
2021-10-30
|
06 | Ronald in 't Velt | Under TSV-ART review |
2021-10-30
|
06 | Ronald in 't Velt | Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. |
2021-10-30
|
06 | Ronald in 't Velt | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2021-10-30
|
06 | Ronald in 't Velt | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2021-10-30
|
06 | Ronald in 't Velt | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2021-10-27
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to David Black |
2021-10-27
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Early review by TSVART is assigned to David Black |
2021-10-26
|
06 | Ronald in 't Velt | Requested Early review by TSVART |
2021-07-29
|
06 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-06.txt |
2021-07-29
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2021-07-29
|
06 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2021-06-21
|
05 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-05.txt |
2021-06-21
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-06-21
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bow-Nan Cheng , David Wiggins , Lou Berger , manet-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-06-21
|
05 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2021-06-07
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-12-04
|
04 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-04.txt |
2020-12-04
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2020-12-04
|
04 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-03
|
03 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-03.txt |
2020-06-03
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2020-06-03
|
03 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-22
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-11-19
|
02 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-02.txt |
2019-11-19
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Lou Berger) |
2019-11-19
|
02 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-07
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-03-11
|
01 | Justin Dean | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-03-06
|
01 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-01.txt |
2019-03-06
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-06
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: manet-chairs@ietf.org, Lou Berger , David Wiggins , Bow-Nan Cheng |
2019-03-06
|
01 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |
2019-02-11
|
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-08-10
|
00 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-00.txt |
2018-08-10
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-08-02
|
00 | Lou Berger | Set submitter to "Lou Berger ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: manet-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-08-02
|
00 | Lou Berger | Uploaded new revision |