Definition of Time to Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-11-10
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-10-24
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from EDIT |
2014-10-09
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-10-08
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-10-06
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-10-06
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-10-06
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-10-06
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-10-06
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-10-06
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-10-06
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-10-06
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks, the concerns are addressed in the referenced RFC in the latest revision. |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] It looks like my DISCUSS has been addressed. The DISCUSS was: I'm probably missing something here, so please help me out. The text … [Ballot comment] It looks like my DISCUSS has been addressed. The DISCUSS was: I'm probably missing something here, so please help me out. The text in 4.2 says: It is possible that the MPLS Echo Request packet was intercepted before the intended destination for reason other than label TTL expiry. This could be due network faults, misconfiguration or other reasons. In such cases, if the return TTL is set to the value specified in the TTL TLV then the echo response packet will continue beyond the originating node. This becomes a security issue. To prevent this, the label TTL value used in the MPLS Echo Reply packet MUST be modified by deducting the incoming label TTL on the received packet from TTL TLV value. If the MPLS Echo Request packet is punted to the CPU before the incoming label TTL is deducted, then another 1 MUST be deducted. In other words: Return TTL Value on the MPLS Echo Reply packet = (TTL TLV Value)- (Incoming Label TTL) + 1 The second paragraph concludes by saying "another 1 must be deducted," but the math in the third paragraph appears to be adding one, possibly because not enough parentheses were used. What was intended here? |
2014-09-25
|
10 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Lemon has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-08-19
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Version -10 has addressed my DISCUSS. Thanks for that, and for also addressing my other comments. |
2014-08-19
|
10 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-08-19
|
10 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-08-19
|
10 | Sami Boutros | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-08-19
|
10 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-10.txt |
2014-08-18
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] Since a traceroute method is described, you are able to map the path, enabling a new network reconnaissance method for MPLS. This should … [Ballot discuss] Since a traceroute method is described, you are able to map the path, enabling a new network reconnaissance method for MPLS. This should be mentioned as a security consideration as you can map paths to destinations that could be used in DoS or other attacks (you know the nodes to attack to impact availability). |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] This document got on the agenda on August 4th, for the August 7th meeting. I got a complaint from the Secdir secretary that … [Ballot comment] This document got on the agenda on August 4th, for the August 7th meeting. I got a complaint from the Secdir secretary that it is too short time for them to do their usual re-review for the telechat. He believes there is no issue in this document, but can we avoid this situation in the future? |
2014-08-07
|
09 | Jari Arkko | Ballot comment text updated for Jari Arkko |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] In section 3.1, do you want to put in the usual "Reserved - MUST be zero (MBZ) when sending and ignored on receipt."? … [Ballot comment] In section 3.1, do you want to put in the usual "Reserved - MUST be zero (MBZ) when sending and ignored on receipt."? Barry's covered the rest. |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot discuss] I'm probably missing something here, so please help me out. The text in 4.2 says: It is possible that the MPLS Echo … [Ballot discuss] I'm probably missing something here, so please help me out. The text in 4.2 says: It is possible that the MPLS Echo Request packet was intercepted before the intended destination for reason other than label TTL expiry. This could be due network faults, misconfiguration or other reasons. In such cases, if the return TTL is set to the value specified in the TTL TLV then the echo response packet will continue beyond the originating node. This becomes a security issue. To prevent this, the label TTL value used in the MPLS Echo Reply packet MUST be modified by deducting the incoming label TTL on the received packet from TTL TLV value. If the MPLS Echo Request packet is punted to the CPU before the incoming label TTL is deducted, then another 1 MUST be deducted. In other words: Return TTL Value on the MPLS Echo Reply packet = (TTL TLV Value)- (Incoming Label TTL) + 1 The second paragraph concludes by saying "another 1 must be deducted," but the math in the third paragraph appears to be adding one, possibly because not enough parentheses were used. What was intended here? |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] I also agree with Barry's discuss. |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] I support Barry's DISCUSS point on section 3.2. |
2014-08-06
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-08-05
|
09 | Pearl Liang | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2014-08-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2014-08-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2014-08-05
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2014-08-04
|
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] I find Section 3.2 sufficiently confusingly worded and unclear that I think we need to have a discussion about re-wording it. I offer … [Ballot discuss] I find Section 3.2 sufficiently confusingly worded and unclear that I think we need to have a discussion about re-wording it. I offer suggested re-wording below, but please bear with my thought process on the way there: This TLV SHALL be included in the MPLS Echo Request by the originator of request. The use of this TLV is optional. That "SHALL" conflicts with the second sentence. My sense is that it's not really a MUST. Perhaps you mean "MAY be included"? In which case, you don't need the second sentence at all, because that's what "MAY" says. (Type value of TLV is assumed to be in the range of optional TLV's which SHOULD be ignored if an implementation does not support or understand them) "Assumed to be"? Shouldn't this simply be "is"? If a receiver understands the TTL TLV, and the TTL TLV is present in the MPLS Echo Request, the receiver MUST use the TTL value specified in TLV in the MPLS header of the MPLS Echo Reply. In other words, if the value of the TTL provided by this TLV does not match the TTL determined by other means, such as Switching Point TLV in MS-PW, then TTL TLV MUST be used. This will aid the originator of the LSP-Ping echo request in analyzing the return path. I find this to be impossibly confusing in its wording, and I had to read it several times before I thought I understood what you're trying to say. Whenever you need to put in "in other words," you should consider that a clue that re-wording would help. As I find the whole section to be awkward, and as the section isn't long, may I presume to suggest re-wording for the section? Of course, please correct any inaccuracies I might have introduced here... but please do consider a re-wording such as this. NEW 3.2. Usage The TTL TLV MAY be included in the MPLS Echo Request by the originator of the request. If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver does not understand TTL TLVs, it will simply ignore the TLV, as is the case for all optional TLVs. If the TTL TLV is not present or is not processed by the receiver, any determination of the TTL value used in the MPLS label on the LSP-Ping echo reply is beyond the scope of this document. If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver understands TTL TLVs, one of the following two conditions apply: o If the TTL TLV value field is zero, the LSP-Ping echo request packet SHOULD be dropped. o Otherwise, the receiver MUST use the TTL value specified in the TTL TLV when it creates the MPLS header of the MPLS Echo Reply. The TTL value in the TTL TLV takes precedence over any TTL value determined by other means, such as from the Switching Point TLV in the MS-PW. This precedence will aid the originator of the LSP-Ping echo request in analyzing the return path. END |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] -- Section 1 -- But, if the originator is not at the end of the MS-PW, the receiver of the MPLS … [Ballot comment] -- Section 1 -- But, if the originator is not at the end of the MS-PW, the receiver of the MPLS Echo Request MAY need to know how many hops away the originator Tiny point: this is not a 2119 "MAY", so it shouldn't be in all caps. If you want to indicate stress, please use "*may*" or "_may_", though you can probably skip that and just make it "may". -- Section 4 -- D detects the TTL TLV in the request, and use the TTL value (i.e., 2) specified in the TLV on the MPLS label of the MPLS Echo Reply. This has a similar problem to part of what confused me in Section 3.2. It looks like you mean it to be parsed this way: "...and use (the TTL value (2) that is specified in the TLV on the MPLS label of the MPLS Echo Reply) [for what?]." But I think you actually mean it to be parsed this way: "...and use (the TTL value (2) that is specified [in the Echo Request]) and put it into the TLV on the MPLS label of the MPLS Echo Reply." Am I correct here? If so, then wording it that way would be *much* clearer: NEW D detects the TTL TLV in the request, and uses that TTL value (2) to put into the TLV on the MPLS label of the MPLS Echo Reply. END The same operation will apply in the case a co-routed bidirectional LSP and we want to check connectivity from an intermediate LSR B to another LSR D, from B. I can't parse this. I think you mean this: NEW The same operation will apply when we have a co-routed bidirectional LSP, and we want to check connectivity from an intermediate LSR "B" to another LSR "D". END -- Section 4.1 -- In the traceroute mode TTL value in the TLV is successively set to 1, 2, and so on. This is similar to the TTL values used for the label set on the packet. May I suggest this, as perhaps clearer (this one is far less important a suggestion than the earlier ones)?: NEW In traceroute mode, the TTL value in the TLV is set to 1 for the first Echo Request, then to 2 for the next, and so on. This is similar to the TTL values used for the label set on the packet. END |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-08-07 |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-08-04
|
09 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-09.txt |
2014-07-30
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-07-30
|
08 | Sami Boutros | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-07-30
|
08 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-08.txt |
2014-05-09
|
07 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. |
2014-04-10
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-04-07
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-04-03
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-04-03
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that there is a single action which needs to be completed upon approval of this document. In the TLVs registry in the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters page at http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ a new TLV type value is to be registered as follows: Type: [ TBD-at-registration ] TLV Name: Time to Live Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the type value must be assigned from the range (32768-49161) of optional TLVs. IANA understands that this is the only action required upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-04-03
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman. |
2014-03-28
|
07 | Tina Tsou | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Peter Schoenmaker |
2014-03-28
|
07 | Tina Tsou | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Peter Schoenmaker |
2014-03-27
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-03-27
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2014-03-27
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
2014-03-27
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-04-07. 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 LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW) from any node on the path of the MS-PW. This document defines a TLV to address this shortcoming. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-03-24
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-03-24
|
07 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07.txt |
2013-11-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | AD review ======== Hi, Thanks for this simple little I-D. Just a few bits and pieces to resolve before we move forward. Cheers, Adrian === … AD review ======== Hi, Thanks for this simple little I-D. Just a few bits and pieces to resolve before we move forward. Cheers, Adrian === Obviously, the idnits issues need to be sorted out. --- Section 1 s/is being proposed/is defined/ s/this document this TLV/this document. This TLV/ --- Surely this mechanism only works if the echo reply is sent down the co-routed return path LSP. All other mechanisms for returning the echo reply make this mechanisms worse than silly! While you do say... The scope of this TTL TLV is currently limited to MS-PW or Bidirectional co-routed MPLS LSPs. ...I don't believe that actually applies the necessary constraint. Shouldn't this somehow be tied to require the use of the return path LSP, either by making the new TLV only valid when the return path is specified to be that LSP, or by saying that the presence of the TLV implies the use of the return path LSP. In either case, you have to describe what happens if the return path is specified using some other mechanism and yet the TLV is present. --- I think your security section should reference the security section of 4379. But there we find... To protect against unauthorized sources using MPLS echo request messages to obtain network information, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a means of checking the source addresses of MPLS echo request messages against an access list before accepting the message. You will need to explain how that recommendation is met since you have opened the box from just the ingress to any node along the path. Furthermore, you now have a field in the Echo Request that we can have fun over-writing. What would happen if I modified the TTL TLV value field in transit? --- The following paragraph in the IANA section needs work Time To Live TLV (See Section 3). The value should be assigned from the range (32768-49161) of optional TLV's which SHOULD be ignored if an implementation does not support or understand them as defined in section 3 of RFC 4379 [RFC4379]. 1. I think you mean that it must be assigned from 32768-49161 2. You can truncate the text at "...optional TLV's." 3. s/TLV's/TLVs/ |
2013-11-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-11-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-11-29
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv@tools.ietf.org |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2013-10-24
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-23
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-23
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2013-10-23
|
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2013-10-18
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-18
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-18
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-18
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-18
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-17
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-10-17
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Implementation poll started! |
2013-10-17
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2013-10-17
|
06 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tags Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway, Other - see Comment Log set. Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2013-10-17
|
06 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-06.txt |
2013-10-09
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2013-10-09
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2013-09-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-09-05
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IPR poll is running |
2013-05-20
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2013-05-20
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2013-04-20
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Waiting to resolve issues on the IPR poll. |
2013-04-20
|
05 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-05.txt |
2013-04-20
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2013-04-20
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2012-10-20
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Document will expire on April 23, need to be reposted. The document is in IPR poll, lacking one author response |
2012-10-20
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IPR Poll started |
2012-10-20
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Waiting for IPR poll |
2012-10-20
|
04 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-04.txt |
2012-09-09
|
03 | Sami Boutros | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-03.txt |
2012-03-06
|
02 | Siva Sivabalan | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-02.txt |
2011-10-28
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-01.txt |
2011-06-29
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-00.txt |