Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Security Version 3
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-11-03
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-06-09
|
17 | Spencer Dawkins | Shepherding AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2016-04-29
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-04-21
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2016-04-19
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2016-02-08
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-02-04
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-02-04
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2016-02-02
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-02-02
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-02-02
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-02-02
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Stiemerling has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-01-28
|
17 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-17.txt |
2016-01-22
|
16 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2016-01-21
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-01-21
|
16 | Andy Adamson | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-01-21
|
16 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-16.txt |
2016-01-20
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | Waiting for the updated draft which includes the proposed fix. |
2016-01-20
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-01-20
|
15 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-01-18
|
15 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-01-14
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2016-01-14
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2016-01-11
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh. |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | Telechat date has been changed to 2016-01-21 from 2016-01-07 |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot discuss] This a placeholder Discuss to wait for an issue brought up in the last minute by one of the co-authors (Nico Williams). This … [Ballot discuss] This a placeholder Discuss to wait for an issue brought up in the last minute by one of the co-authors (Nico Williams). This DISCUSS will be held until the next telechat to give time to react for the authors. The next telechat for this document is January 21st. |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Martin Stiemerling has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] victor kuarsingh performed to opsdir review resulting in v15, no objections. |
2016-01-07
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-01-06
|
15 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-15.txt |
2016-01-06
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for clearing up the sentences discussed in the SecDir review in your next version: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06302.html |
2016-01-06
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-01-06
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I have the same question as Ben does about rp_name: nothing is said about it other than "human readable". Can we have a … [Ballot comment] I have the same question as Ben does about rp_name: nothing is said about it other than "human readable". Can we have a brief discussion about this? |
2016-01-06
|
14 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2016-01-05
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Hi just a couple of comments: - 2.7.1.4: rp_name is labeled "human readable". Are there internationalization considerations? -5: It would be nice to … [Ballot comment] Hi just a couple of comments: - 2.7.1.4: rp_name is labeled "human readable". Are there internationalization considerations? -5: It would be nice to see the IANA request details in this draft |
2016-01-05
|
14 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-01-05
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot has been issued |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-03
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-12-17
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Radia Perlman. |
2015-12-15
|
14 | Andy Adamson | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-12-15
|
14 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-14.txt |
2015-12-14
|
13 | Elwyn Davies | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. |
2015-12-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2015-12-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Radia Perlman |
2015-12-10
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Ben Laurie was rejected |
2015-12-09
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-01-07 |
2015-12-09
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-11-30
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-30
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-13.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-11-30
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-11-30
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies |
2015-11-29
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2015-11-29
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2015-11-26
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
2015-11-26
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3@ietf.org, mls.ietf@gmail.com, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3@ietf.org, mls.ietf@gmail.com, spencer.shepler@gmail.com, nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, nfsv4@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Security Version 3) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Network File System Version 4 WG (nfsv4) to consider the following document: - 'Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Security Version 3' 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 2015-12-09. 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. Please note that these documents are belonging together and should be reviewed together. These documents are in IETF last call: draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 Abstract This document specifies version 3 of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) security protocol (RPCSEC_GSS). This protocol provides support for multi-principal authentication of client hosts and user principals to server (constructed by generic composition), security label assertions for multi-level and type enforcement, structured privilege assertions, and channel bindings. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call was requested |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call was requested |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-11-25
|
13 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-11-02
|
13 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-13.txt |
2015-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Notify list changed from nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3@ietf.org, "Spencer Shepler" to (None) |
2015-09-24
|
12 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-09-10
|
12 | Spencer Shepler | This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 (Main) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Related) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related) and is … This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 (Main) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Related) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related) and is authored by Spencer Shepler - document shepherd. (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? Proposed Standard (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 This document specifies version 3 of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) security protocol (RPCSEC_GSS). This protocol provides support for multi-principal authentication of client hosts and user principals to server (constructed by generic composition), security label assertions for multi-level and type enforcement, structured privilege assertions, and channel bindings. Working Group Summary The journey within the working group for this document and the technologies that it encompasses has been a somewhat longer process than the norm. However, the results are that many of the features have been implemented independently and the feedback has been effectively folded back into this document. Thus the document quality is very good and the resultant features have been constructed thoughfully and with working group consensus. Document Quality From the above, the process, from a time perspective, has been longer than most but represents thoughtfulness, implementation feedback and the results have been a high quality document. The editing and feedback has been done by experience working group members with input from the entire community. Overall, I, as document shepherd and working group co-chair, am very pleased with the results. Personnel Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (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. I have reviewed the document in-whole and have been involved as reviewer throughout the process of document/protocol development. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I have no concerns about the breadth or depth of review. (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. See main NFSv4.2 shepherding document. (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. The document shepherd has not outstanding 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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Not applicable. (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? There is solid working group consensus for these documents. (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, there are no known discontent with respect to these documents. (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. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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? Normative references are in a known/good state and ready to move forward. (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. None. (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. These I-Ds/proposed standards are additive to existing work for NFSv4. (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). IANA section is aligned with 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. Not applicable. (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. Verified XDR provided in documents is appropriate and aligns with XDR syntax and standards. |
2015-09-10
|
12 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-09-10
|
12 | Spencer Shepler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
2015-09-10
|
12 | Spencer Shepler | This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 (Main) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Related) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related) and is … This shepherd writeup is for the following collection of I-Ds: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12 (Main) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39 (Related) draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39 (Related) and is authored by Spencer Shepler - document shepherd. (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? Proposed Standard (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 This document specifies version 3 of the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) security protocol (RPCSEC_GSS). This protocol provides support for multi-principal authentication of client hosts and user principals to server (constructed by generic composition), security label assertions for multi-level and type enforcement, structured privilege assertions, and channel bindings. Working Group Summary The journey within the working group for this document and the technologies that it encompasses has been a somewhat longer process than the norm. However, the results are that many of the features have been implemented independently and the feedback has been effectively folded back into this document. Thus the document quality is very good and the resultant features have been constructed thoughfully and with working group consensus. Document Quality From the above, the process, from a time perspective, has been longer than most but represents thoughtfulness, implementation feedback and the results have been a high quality document. The editing and feedback has been done by experience working group members with input from the entire community. Overall, I, as document shepherd and working group co-chair, am very pleased with the results. Personnel Document Shepherd: Spencer Shepler Area Director: Martin Stiemerling (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. I have reviewed the document in-whole and have been involved as reviewer throughout the process of document/protocol development. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? I have no concerns about the breadth or depth of review. (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. See main NFSv4.2 shepherding document. (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. The document shepherd has not outstanding 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. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. Not applicable. (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? There is solid working group consensus for these documents. (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, there are no known discontent with respect to these documents. (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. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (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? Normative references are in a known/good state and ready to move forward. (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. None. (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. These I-Ds/proposed standards are additive to existing work for NFSv4. (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). IANA section is aligned with 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. Not applicable. (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. Verified XDR provided in documents is appropriate and aligns with XDR syntax and standards. |
2015-07-06
|
12 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-12.txt |
2015-04-22
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-04-22
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-04-22
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | Notification list changed to nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3@ietf.org, "Spencer Shepler" <spencer.shepler@gmail.com> from nfsv4-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3@ietf.org |
2015-04-22
|
11 | Spencer Shepler | Document shepherd changed to Spencer Shepler |
2015-01-05
|
11 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-11.txt |
2014-12-08
|
10 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-10.txt |
2014-11-19
|
09 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-09.txt |
2014-07-07
|
08 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-08.txt |
2014-02-28
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
2014-02-14
|
07 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-07.txt |
2014-01-07
|
06 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-06.txt |
2013-10-17
|
05 | Andy Adamson | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-05.txt |
2013-05-11
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2013-05-11
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2012-12-18
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2012-12-18
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2012-11-07
|
04 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-04.txt |
2012-10-15
|
03 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-03.txt |
2012-04-23
|
02 | Thomas Haynes | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-02.txt |
2011-11-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-01.txt |
2011-06-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gssv3-00.txt |