mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-05-02
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot has been issued |
2024-05-02
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot has been issued |
2024-05-02
|
05 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-05-02
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-05-02
|
05 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-05-02
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-05-02
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-04-30
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-04-30
|
05 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05. 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-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the TLV Type Name Space Registry in the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry group located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ldp-namespaces/ a single new registration will be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Description: MT Multipoint Capability Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Notes/Registration Date: We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. NOTE: The action 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 action 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 |
2024-04-25
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2024-04-25
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Christian Huitema |
2024-04-19
|
05 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar |
2024-04-19
|
05 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mike McBride |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, tsaad.net@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, tsaad.net@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing' 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 2024-05-02. 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 Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) is a technology to enable service differentiation within an IP network. Flexible Algorithm (FA) is another mechanism of creating a sub-topology within a topology using defined topology constraints and computation algorithm. In order to deploy mLDP (Multipoint label distribution protocol) in a network that supports MTR and/or FA, mLDP is required to become topology and FA aware. This document specifies extensions to mLDP to support MTR with FA such that when building a Multipoint LSPs(Label Switched Paths) it can follow a particular topology and algorithm. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Last call was requested |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-04-18
|
05 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-18
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Mankamana Mishra | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05.txt |
2024-04-18
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-18
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Arkadiy Gulko , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Mishra , Syed Raza , Zhaohui Zhang , mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-04-18
|
05 | Mankamana Mishra | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-16
|
04 | Jim Guichard | AD review completed === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/ob5rpYbcBHOoXMEwixiaZoJnipQ/ === |
2024-04-16
|
04 | (System) | Changed action holders to IJsbrand Wijnands, Kamran Raza, Zhaohui Zhang, Arkadiy Gulko, Mankamana Mishra (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-16
|
04 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2024-04-16
|
04 | Jim Guichard | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard |
2024-04-10
|
04 | Mankamana Mishra | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-04.txt |
2024-04-10
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-04-10
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anuj Budhiraja , Arkadiy Gulko , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Mishra , Syed Raza , Zhaohui Zhang … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anuj Budhiraja , Arkadiy Gulko , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Mishra , Syed Raza , Zhaohui Zhang , mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2024-04-10
|
04 | Mankamana Mishra | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2024-02-17
|
03 | Yingzhen Qu | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-02-17
|
03 | Yingzhen Qu | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu. |
2024-02-01
|
03 | Daniam Henriques | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Yingzhen Qu |
2024-02-01
|
03 | Andrew Alston | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2024-02-01
|
03 | (System) | Changed action holders to Andrew Alston (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-01
|
03 | Andrew Alston | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-09-18
|
03 | Tarek Saad | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## 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? [Ans]: The WG consensus represents broad agreement. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [Ans]: No. 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.) [Ans]: 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? [Ans]: Yes, an implementations exist. See section 9 of the document. ## 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. [Ans]: Yes, aspects of the solution leverage IGP extensions for flexible algorithm defined by SR and IGP/LSR WGs. The respective WGs were involved during the progress of the document and during the WGLC. 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. [Ans]: Yes, MPLS review team members reviewed before adoption by the WG. Further reviews by the RTGDIR members and all comments were addressed. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? [Ans]: 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. [Ans]: not applicable. ## 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? [Ans]: this document defines extensions to allow MLDP to become topology and flex-algo to enable service differentiation for multicast traffic over MPLS network. The shepherd believes this is needed document, well written and ready to be handed off to the AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? [Ans]: The RTGDIR was engaged to perform early review. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? [Ans]: Proposed Standard. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. [Ans]: A first IPR poll was done before adoption of the document. A second IPR poll was done before WGLC. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. [Ans]: Currently, the document has 6 authors at the front page. Authors are associated with different vendors and an operator. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) [Ans]: Nits to be addressed. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. [Ans]: None identified. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? [Ans]: None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. [Ans]: None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? [Ans]: None. 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. [Ans]: No. 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][11]). [Ans]: the IANA section defines a new LDP capability parameter TLV for 'MT Multipoint Capability' and requests a new code point for the LDP TLV code point be assigned the lowest available value after 0x0500 from "TLV Type Name Space" in the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry within "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Name Spaces". 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. [Ans]: yes. One registry: "TLV Type Name Space" in the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry within "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Name Spaces" [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-09-18
|
03 | Tarek Saad | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-09-18
|
03 | Tarek Saad | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-09-18
|
03 | Tarek Saad | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-09-18
|
03 | Tarek Saad | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-09-18
|
03 | Tarek Saad | ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did … ## 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? [Ans]: The WG consensus represents broad agreement. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? [Ans]: No. 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.) [Ans]: 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][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? [Ans]: Yes, an implementations exist. See section 9 of the document. ## 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. [Ans]: Yes, aspects of the solution leverage IGP extensions for flexible algorithm defined by SR and IGP/LSR WGs. The respective WGs were involved during the progress of the document and during the WGLC. 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. [Ans]: Yes, MPLS review team members reviewed before adoption by the WG. Further reviews by the RTGDIR members and all comments were addressed. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] 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][5]? [Ans]: 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. [Ans]: not applicable. ## 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? [Ans]: this document defines extensions to allow MLDP to become topology and flex-algo to enable service differentiation for multicast traffic over MPLS network. The shepherd believes this is needed document, well written and ready to be handed off to the AD. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? [Ans]: The RTGDIR was engaged to perform early review. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? [Ans]: Proposed Standard. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. [Ans]: A first IPR poll was done before adoption of the document. A second IPR poll was done before WGLC. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. [Ans]: Currently, the document has 6 authors at the front page. Authors are associated with different vendors and an operator. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) [Ans]: Nits to be addressed. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. [Ans]: None identified. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? [Ans]: None. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. [Ans]: None. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? [Ans]: None. 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. [Ans]: No. 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][11]). [Ans]: the IANA section defines a new LDP capability parameter TLV for 'MT Multipoint Capability' and requests a new code point for the LDP TLV code point be assigned the lowest available value after 0x0500 from "TLV Type Name Space" in the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry within "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Name Spaces". 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. [Ans]: yes. One registry: "TLV Type Name Space" in the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry within "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Name Spaces" [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-08-02
|
03 | Mankamana Mishra | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-03.txt |
2023-08-02
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-02
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anuj Budhiraja , Arkadiy Gulko , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Mishra , Syed Raza , Zhaohui Zhang … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Anuj Budhiraja , Arkadiy Gulko , IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Mishra , Syed Raza , Zhaohui Zhang , mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2023-08-02
|
03 | Mankamana Mishra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-27
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-06-13
|
02 | Tarek Saad | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2023-04-17
|
02 | Tarek Saad | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-04-17
|
02 | Tarek Saad | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-03-27
|
02 | Tarek Saad | Notification list changed to tsaad.net@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-03-27
|
02 | Tarek Saad | Document shepherd changed to Tarek Saad |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Gyan Mishra | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. |
2023-02-28
|
02 | Gyan Mishra | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Gyan Mishra. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-02-18
|
02 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Gyan Mishra |
2023-02-08
|
02 | Tarek Saad | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-01-23
|
02 | Mankamana Mishra | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-02.txt |
2023-01-23
|
02 | Mankamana Mishra | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mankamana Mishra) |
2023-01-23
|
02 | Mankamana Mishra | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-26
|
01 | Mankamana Mishra | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-01.txt |
2022-07-26
|
01 | Mankamana Mishra | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Mankamana Mishra) |
2022-07-26
|
01 | Mankamana Mishra | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-19
|
00 | Mach Chen | Added to session: IETF-114: mpls Tue-1330 |
2022-07-07
|
00 | Loa Andersson | This document now replaces draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-multi-topology instead of None |
2022-06-29
|
00 | Mankamana Mishra | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-00.txt |
2022-06-29
|
00 | Tarek Saad | WG -00 approved |
2022-06-29
|
00 | Mankamana Mishra | Set submitter to "Mankamana Mishra ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
2022-06-29
|
00 | Mankamana Mishra | Uploaded new revision |