A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-04-10
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-03-24
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-03-24
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-02-02
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-30
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-28
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-01-28
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-01-28
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-01-27
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-01-27
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-01-27
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-01-27
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-01-27
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-24
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-01-24
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-24
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-01-23
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-23
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I am an author. |
2014-01-23
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to Recuse from Abstain |
2014-01-23
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-01-23
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-01-23
|
06 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2014-01-22
|
06 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-01-22
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-01-21
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-01-21
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-21
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-01-19
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-17
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-01-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2014-01-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2014-01-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-01-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-17
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-01-17
|
06 | Lou Berger | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-01-17
|
06 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-06.txt |
2014-01-16
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-01-16
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-23 |
2014-01-16
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | revised I-D needed to address last call comments |
2014-01-16
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-01-16
|
05 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2014-01-16) |
2014-01-09
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein |
2014-01-09
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rob Austein |
2014-01-06
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-01-06
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bill Manning |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bill Manning |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-01-02
|
05 | 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: (A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks' as Informational RFC 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 2014-01-16. 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 The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile is the common set of MPLS protocol functions defined to enable the construction and operation of packet transport networks. The MPLS-TP supports both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transport paths. This document defines the elements and functions of the MPLS-TP architecture applicable specifically to supporting point-to- multipoint transport paths. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-01-02
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-12-28
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | AD review ======= Thanks for this document. I have done my usual AD review on receiving the publication request and I find just a couple … AD review ======= Thanks for this document. I have done my usual AD review on receiving the publication request and I find just a couple of nits that can be rolled into the IETF last call which I will start forthwith. Thanks, Adrian === Dan will probably want to update his coordinates. --- You don't need to be so enthusiastic with your acronyms in Section 1.2 The following are "well known" according to http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt GMPLS Generalized MPLS LDP Label Distribution Protocol MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching There is a serial comma missing from OAM Operations, Administration and Maintenance The comma is also missing in your text. --- In Section 1.3 you say There is no definition for MPLS TE-LSP support of multipoint-to- multipoint connectivity and none is anticipated. Without opening up a discussion of whether what you cay is true, can you say why it is relevant? Perhaps "This document is limited to a discussion of point-to-multipoint function and does not discuss multipoint-to-multipoint support." You might also move this to Section 1.1. |
2013-11-29
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS working group request that A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks … The MPLS working group request that A Framework for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS in Transport Networks draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-04/5 Is published as an Informational RFC As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? The document is a rather typical framework and should be published as an Informational RFC. We are seeking IETF consensus, since the document potentially needs to be referenced ITU-T Recommendations, the document should go through an IETF Last Call. (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 Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction MPLS-TP is the common set of MPLS protocol functions defined to enable establsihment and operation of packet transport networks transoport LSPs.. MPLS-TP supports both point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transport paths (LSPs). This document defines the elements and functions of the MPLS architecture applicable specifically to the support point-to- multipoint transport paths. . Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No such concerns. MPLS-RT reviewers, before adopting the document as a working group document, were David Allan, Jia He and Lizhong Jin. 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? This document is an Informational framework, and as such we will see no direct implementations of the document, though we are aware of intentions to implement protocols for establsihing P2MP MPLS-TP LSPs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel 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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document in full two times and partly several times. The first full review were done prior to the acceptance of the document as a working group document, the second prior to starting the working group last call. The Document Shepherd is convinced that the document is ready to be published as an Informational RFC. (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 has been done, nor are they necessary. (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. The working group mailing list were polled for IPRs prior to the WGLC. All the authors has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR that is related 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. No IPR claims 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? The working group is behind this document. The document is also one of (the last) documents that we agreed with ITU-T SG15 to develop for MPLS-TP. (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 http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The Document Shepherd has presonal checked that the document passes the nits tool checks clean. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No requirements for formal reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? The references are correctly split. (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? All normative references are to existing RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward refreneces. (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. The publication of this RFC will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (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). There are no requests for IANA actions 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 IANA registries that will require Expert Review is created by this document. (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 automated reviews (other than nits) has been necessary for this document. |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework@tools.ietf.org |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-18
|
05 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05.txt |
2013-11-03
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-01
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Authors. will evaluate the comments and see if a new version is motivated |
2013-11-01
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2013-10-24
|
04 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-10-17
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-17
|
04 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-10-16
|
04 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-04.txt |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Martin Vigoureux | IPR poll running |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from WG Document |
2013-10-14
|
03 | Martin Vigoureux | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2013-10-11
|
03 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-03.txt |
2013-09-30
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-02.txt |
2013-09-11
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
2013-04-08
|
01 | Lou Berger | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-01.txt |
2013-01-21
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-00.txt |