Skip to main content

Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-10-13
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-09-27
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-09-19
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2017-08-24
04 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2017-08-22
04 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2017-08-18
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2017-08-18
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2017-08-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2017-08-17
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-08-17
04 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-08-17
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-08-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2017-08-17
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-08-17
04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-08-17
04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-08-17
04 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-08-17
04 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2017-08-17
04 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-04.txt
2017-08-17
04 (System) New version approved
2017-08-17
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen
2017-08-17
04 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision
2017-08-17
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for working to address my DISCUSS.

In Section 2.3:

      0                  …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for working to address my DISCUSS.

In Section 2.3:

      0                  1                  2                    3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Length    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                Label                |Rsrv |S~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                Label                |Rsrv |S|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Prefix                              ~
    ~                                                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3: NLRI With Multiple Labels

  - Length:

      The Length field consists of a single octet.  It specifies the
      length in bits of the remainder of the NLRI field.

I would like to double check that my math is correct. With SAFI=128 and AFI=2,
assuming the prefix length of 192 bits, this will leave space for:

(255-192)/24 = 2.625. So this configuration only allows for 2 labels to be included, right?
2017-08-17
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2017-08-04
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-08-04
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2017-08-04
03 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-03.txt
2017-08-04
03 (System) New version approved
2017-08-04
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen
2017-08-04
03 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision
2017-08-03
02 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2017-08-02
02 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-02
02 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-02
02 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-08-02
02 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-08-02
02 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
The security considerations section should at least mention that none of the tunnel methods provide encryption or authentication of those mentioned earlier in …
[Ballot comment]
The security considerations section should at least mention that none of the tunnel methods provide encryption or authentication of those mentioned earlier in the document (Section 4: LSP, IP, GRE, & UDP).  Although this isn't listed as a discuss, I'd appreciate the comment being addressed with an update to the text (1-2 sentences at most).  Thank you.
2017-08-02
02 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-02
02 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt

S 2.1
I note that you use 255 to mean "any number of labels" and 0 is marked
ignore. Is there …
[Ballot comment]
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt

S 2.1
I note that you use 255 to mean "any number of labels" and 0 is marked
ignore. Is there a reason not to use 255 as a concrete number and 0
to mean "any number"? This is just for my information.


S 2.3.
      Note that failure to set the S bit in the last label will make it
      impossible to parse the NLRI correctly.  See Section 3 paragraph j
      of [RFC7606] for a discussion of error handling when the NLRI
      cannot be parsed.

It would be helpful if you explicitly said that you parse this value
by reading labels one at a time until you get a non-zero S bit. It's
implicity, but having it be clear would be nice.
2017-08-02
02 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2017-08-01
02 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-08-01
02 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-08-01
02 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to discuss one issue before recommending approval of this document:

In Section 2.1:

  The value field of the Multiple …
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to discuss one issue before recommending approval of this document:

In Section 2.1:

  The value field of the Multiple Labels Capability (shown in Figure 1)
  consists of one or more triples, where each triple consists of four
  octets.  The first two octets of a triple specify an AFI value, the
  third octet specifies a SAFI value, and the fourth specifies a Count.
  If one of the triples is , the Count is the maximum
  number of labels that the BGP speaker sending the Capability can
  process in a received UPDATE of the specified AFI/SAFI.

I think lack of recommendations on the minimal supported Count value will result in lack of interoperability.
What are the common Count values used by implementations?
2017-08-01
02 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
In Section 2.3:

      0                  1                …
[Ballot comment]
In Section 2.3:

      0                  1                  2                    3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Length    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                Label                |Rsrv |S~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                Label                |Rsrv |S|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Prefix                              ~
    ~                                                              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 3: NLRI With Multiple Labels

  - Length:

      The Length field consists of a single octet.  It specifies the
      length in bits of the remainder of the NLRI field.

I would like to double check that my math is correct. With SAFI=128 and AFI=2,
assuming the prefix length of 192 bits, this will leave space for:

(255-192)/24 = 2.625. So this configuration only allows for 2 labels to be included, right?
2017-08-01
02 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-07-31
02 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-07-24
02 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-07-24
02 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2017-07-24
02 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-07-24
02 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2017-07-24
02 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2017-07-12
02 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-07-07
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-07-07
02 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the Capability Codes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/

a new registration is to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Description: Multiple Labels Capability
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, also in the Capability Codes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/

Capability Code 4 ("Multiple routes to a destination") will be marked as deprecated. The reference will be changed from [RFC3107] to [ RFC-to-be ].

Third, in the SAFI Values registry on the Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/

the reference for SAFI 4 will be changed from [RFC3107] to [ RFC-to-be ].

In addition, the reference for SAFI value 128 will have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the existing reference.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these three actions are the only ones 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 only to confirm what actions will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-07-06
02 Brian Carpenter Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list.
2017-06-30
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2017-06-30
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2017-06-30
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2017-06-30
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2017-06-29
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2017-06-29
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2017-06-29
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2017-06-29
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2017-06-28
02 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-06-28
02 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson , …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson , loa@pi.nu
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels
to Address Prefixes'
  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 2017-07-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to
  advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label
  (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels, organized as a contiguous
  part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix.  This can be
  done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability
  Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s), and
  whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is
  bound to said label(s).  This document obsoletes RFC 3107.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2017-06-28
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-06-28
02 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-03
2017-06-28
02 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2017-06-28
02 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2017-06-28
02 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2017-06-28
02 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2017-06-28
02 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2017-06-27
02 Stewart Bryant Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list.
2017-05-30
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2017-05-30
02 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant
2017-05-30
02 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2017-05-29
02 Loa Andersson
                    The MPLS working reguest that

            Using BGP to Bind …
                    The MPLS working reguest that

            Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
                    draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02

            is published as an RFC on the standards track

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?


  This document updates and specifies label distribution procedurs
  when usign BGP as the label distribution protocol.
 
  The document is an update of RFC 3107 (PS), the updated document
  needs to be the same type of document.

  We therefor request that the updated document is published as a
  Proposed Standard.

  The doucment header says "Standard Track".


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  RFC 3107 specifies encodings and procedures for using BGP to
  indicate that a particular router has bound either a single MPLS
  label or a sequence of MPLS labels to a particular address prefix.
  This is done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer
  Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the
  MPLS label(s), and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at
  which said prefix is bound to said label(s). Each such UPDATE also
  advertises a path to the specified prefix, via the specified next
  hop.

  Although there are many implementations and deployments of
  RFC3107, there are a number of issues with [RFC3107] that have
  impeded interoperability in the past, and may potentially impede
  interoperability in the future.

  This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 3107.  It defines a new
  BGP Capability to be used when binding a sequence of labels to
  a prefix; by using this Capability, the interoperability problems
  alluded to above can be avoided.

  This document also removes the unimplemented "Advertising Multiple
  Routes to a Destination" feature, while specifying how to use
  RFC 7911 to provide the same functionality.

  This document also addresses the issue of the how UPDATEs that
  bind labels to a given prefix interact with UPDATEs that advertise
  paths to that prefix but do not bind labels to it.  However, for
  backwards compatibility, it declares most of these interactions
  to be matters of local policy.

Working Group Summary

  The MPLS working group does solidly support this doucment, it
  address wellknown interoperability problems. We had a good number
  of people supporting working group adoption and later (in the
  working last call) supporting publication.

  The document has also been eorking group last called in IDR and
  bess, the support from these groups are also strong.

  There has been no controversies around this upfate of RFC 3107,
  the

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

  We know of several implementations of RFC 3107, thus a very good
  understanding of the interoperability problems. We also know of
  intents to implement the updated version. An implementation poll
  has been started, and as soon as we have new information this
  Shepherd Write-up as soon as the inforamtion changes.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
  Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The draft was first posted as draft-rosen-idr-rfc3107bis, this
  draft was reviewed by idr, bess and mpls wg chairs and it was
  decided to progress the document in the mpls working group.

  Next it was by the shepherd prior to the working group poll and
  then once more before starting the the working group last call.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No such concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No such reviews needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  All the authors has stated on the mpls working group mailing
  that they are not aware of any IPRs that relates to this document.

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

  There are no IPRs disclosed against this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  This is an update of a well implemented document, we have been
  aware of the interop problems, and the wg fully support fixing
  these problens.

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

  No such threats.

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

  The document has been carefully checked for nits, no issues found.
  The document passes the nits tool clean, with the exception that
  a newer version of one of the informative reference has been posted.
  Normally we wait until the document is in the final states of the
  RFC Editor work, before finally synch this.

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

  No such formal review required.

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

  Yes, the references are corretly split in normative and informative
  references.

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

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

  All the normative references are to existing RFCs.

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

  This document will obsolete RFC 3107, this is listed on the front
  page, the abstract and the introduction.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA registry has been reviewed by the shepherd several times
  since the document was accepted as a working group document and
  during working group last call.

  The IANA section is well and clearly written, and well aligned
  with the rest of the document.

  There are no new IANA registries defined in this document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries.

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

  No such formal checks required.

2017-05-29
02 Loa Andersson Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2017-05-29
02 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-05-29
02 Loa Andersson IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-05-29
02 Loa Andersson IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-05-29
02 Loa Andersson Changed document writeup
2017-05-25
02 Loa Andersson IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2017-05-23
02 Loa Andersson Notification list changed to Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
2017-05-23
02 Loa Andersson Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson
2017-05-23
02 Loa Andersson Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-05-23
02 Loa Andersson Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2017-05-11
02 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt
2017-05-11
02 (System) New version approved
2017-05-11
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen , mpls-chairs@ietf.org
2017-05-11
02 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision
2017-04-27
01 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick.
2017-04-24
01 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2017-04-24
01 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2017-04-04
01 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2017-04-04
01 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2017-04-04
01 Loa Andersson Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2017-03-13
01 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-01.txt
2017-03-13
01 (System) New version approved
2017-03-13
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen , mpls-chairs@ietf.org
2017-03-13
01 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision
2016-09-16
00 Loa Andersson This document now replaces draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis instead of None
2016-09-16
00 Eric Rosen WG -00 approved
2016-09-16
00 Eric Rosen Uploaded new revision
2016-09-16
00 Eric Rosen Set submitter to "Eric C. Rosen ", replaces to draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis and sent approval email to group chairs: mpls-chairs@ietf.org
2016-09-16
00 Eric Rosen New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-00.txt