Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-12-14
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-11-27
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-11-13
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-08-26
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Tina Tsou was marked no-response |
2019-08-15
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions |
2019-08-15
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-08-15
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-08-15
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-08-14
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-08-14
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-08-14
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-08-14
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-08-14
|
08 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2019-07-08
|
08 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-08.txt |
2019-07-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Daniel King , Haomian Zheng |
2019-07-08
|
08 | Daniel King | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Christer Holmberg Last Call GENART review |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] This document claims to be an "applicability statement" but is being published as Informational. Is the divergence from an RFC 2026 Applicability Statement … [Ballot comment] This document claims to be an "applicability statement" but is being published as Informational. Is the divergence from an RFC 2026 Applicability Statement intentional? I share other AD's concerns about the lack of review indicated in the shepherd writeup, though to some extent the content seems obviously true. Section 1 A number of issues exist for routing in multi-domain networks, these include: nit: this is a comma splice. Section 1.1 Perhaps the first two paragraphs could indicate that the first paragraph is considering general usage, outside of this document, while the second paragraph restricts to just the current usage in this document. Section 1.2 architecture defined in [RFC4655]. When a path has required the Path Computation Client (PCC) will send a request to the PCE. The PCE nit: "is required" (or "has been requested", I suppose) Section 1.5 RFCs 5088 and 5089 are for OSPV and IS-IS discovery mechanisms. Aren't those inherently (in some sense) limited to a single IGP area, making it difficult to discover PCEs located in other ASes? Section 4.2 Are there references available for the numbers claimed in this section? (They seem reasonable to me, but for archival purposes it can be helpful.) Section 4.5 An operator may also need to avoid a path that uses specified nodes for administrative reasons, or if a specific connectivity service required to have a 1+1 protection capability, two completely disjoint paths must be established, Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information may be provided to ensure path diversity. I think maybe the last comma is a comma splice? The distribution of SRLG information does seem to be somewhat different from the requirements for various types of paths, at least. Section 5.1.2 nit: "zero, one or more" seems equivalent to "zero or more" Section 7.2 Please expand OSS. Section 13 PCEP security is defined [RFC5440]. [...] (nit?) It seems that 5440 just says "use IPsec (or TCP-MD5), which is not exactly in-protocol "PCEP security" per se. As the secdir reviewer notes, some additional guidance on what to do when crossing administrative boundaries is probably in order. |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) I share Mirja’s concerns about the lack of review per the shepherd write-up . (2) Section 5. Per “The method may require … [Ballot comment] (1) I share Mirja’s concerns about the lack of review per the shepherd write-up . (2) Section 5. Per “The method may require several crankback …”, perhaps a reference to RFC4920 might be appropriate. (3) Section 5.1.3. What does “protection” mean in the context of “It may be necessary (for protection …) to computer a path that is partially or entirely diverse …”? |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] I agree with Alvaro that lot of the references are really normative rather than informative. I also share Mirja's concerns about lack of … [Ballot comment] I agree with Alvaro that lot of the references are really normative rather than informative. I also share Mirja's concerns about lack of review. |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-06-13
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-06-12
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-06-12
|
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you all for the work put into this document. Beside the apparent lack of interest and review in the WG, I liked … [Ballot comment] Thank you all for the work put into this document. Beside the apparent lack of interest and review in the WG, I liked this document with its educational purpose. A couple of nits below and one comment. == COMMENTS == -- Section 3 -- 3 issues are identified (multi-homing, domain confidentiality, destination location) and I can only identify one analyzed in details (in section 8) while the others are not. Is it on purpose? Or is they are, may I suggest to add references to the relevant sections in this section 3 ? == NITS == -- Section 1.1 -- s/Antonymous/Autonomous/ -- Section 1.2 -- Unsure how to parse "When a path has required the Path Computation Client (PCC) will send a request to the PCE", there seems that a comma or semi-colon is missing. |
2019-06-12
|
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-06-11
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja in that the information in this document can probably already be found in other documents... I am balloting No … [Ballot comment] I agree with Mirja in that the information in this document can probably already be found in other documents... I am balloting No Objection because that may be enough to provide some value. There are no Normative References. I believe that many of the references are required to be read to understand what this document talks about, and should be Normative. |
2019-06-11
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-06-05
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I only had a quick read of this document, however, the actual value of archiving this document in the RFC series is not … [Ballot comment] I only had a quick read of this document, however, the actual value of archiving this document in the RFC series is not clear to me. This document rather seems to a be high-level summary of various other RFCs than an applicability statement. Also the shepherd write-up indicates that there was very little review of this document which seems also concerning. |
2019-06-05
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-05-31
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-06-13 |
2019-05-31
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-05-31
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2019-05-31
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-05-31
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-05-31
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-05-30
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-05-29
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Stephen Farrell. Sent review to list. |
2019-05-23
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Farrell |
2019-05-23
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Farrell |
2019-05-22
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-05-22
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry 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, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-05-21
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2019-05-21
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg |
2019-05-21
|
07 | Wassim Haddad | Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Wassim Haddad was rejected |
2019-05-20
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2019-05-20
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou |
2019-05-17
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2019-05-17
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: db3546@att.com, Jonathan Hardwick , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-05-30): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: db3546@att.com, Jonathan Hardwick , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com, draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of the Path Computation Element to Inter-Area and Inter- AS MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering' 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 2019-05-30. 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 Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used for computing services that traverse multi-area and multi-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) networks. This document examines the applicability of the PCE architecture, protocols, and protocol extensions for computing multi-area and multi-AS paths in MPLS and GMPLS networks. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2019-05-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-04-28
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mach Chen. |
2019-04-19
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Mach Chen will do RTG Dir review. |
2019-04-19
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2019-04-17
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen |
2019-04-17
|
07 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Mach Chen |
2019-04-16
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper … (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? Informational. This is proper as the document is an applicability statement. Yes, it is in the title page header. (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 discusses the applicability of the PCE architecture to various inter-domain use cases. Working Group Summary: The document's progress through the working group was smooth. Document Quality: The document is an applicability statement; there are several implementations of the PCE features that it discusses. Personnel: Jon Hardwick is the document shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the responsible AD. (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 reviewed the document twice. Once in 2017, and once again recently. My first review found a large number of issues with clarity and document structure. These had all been addressed to my satisfaction by the time of my second review. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Apart from myself, I do not remember seeing any other reviews of this document on the PCE mailing list, although as the document has been around for a very long time, there may have been reviews in its early days that I did not see. Despite this, whenever the PCE working group was asked, the WG found this document to cover an important subject and supported its publication as RFC. (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 applicable. (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. I am comfortable with this document. (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. No. (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? Although the WGLC for this document provoked few replies, there was nobody who disagreed with its publication. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (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. There are a couple of nits due to the fact that the document was last updated in 2018. These should disappear next time the document is refreshed. (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? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No. (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 document makes no request of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. 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. Not applicable. |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-03-27
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2019-03-26
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper … (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? Informational. This is proper as the document is an applicability statement. Yes, it is in the title page header. (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 discusses the applicability of the PCE architecture to various inter-domain use cases. Working Group Summary: The document's progress through the working group was smooth. Document Quality: The document is an applicability statement; there are several implementations of the PCE features that it discusses. Personnel: Jon Hardwick is the document shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the responsible AD. (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 reviewed the document twice. Once in 2017, and once again recently. My first review found a large number of issues with clarity and document structure. These had all been addressed to my satisfaction by the time of my second review. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Apart from myself, I do not remember seeing any other reviews of this document on the PCE mailing list, although as the document has been around for a very long time, there may have been reviews in its early days that I did not see. Despite this, whenever the PCE working group was asked, the WG found this document to cover an important subject and supported its publication as RFC. (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 applicable. (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. I am comfortable with this document. (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. No. (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? Although the WGLC for this document provoked few replies, there was nobody who disagreed with its publication. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (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. There are a couple of nits due to the fact that the document was last updated in 2018. These should disappear next time the document is refreshed. (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? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No. (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 document makes no request of IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. 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. Not applicable. |
2019-02-11
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Notification list changed to Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> |
2019-02-11
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hardwick |
2019-02-11
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2019-02-11
|
07 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-12-13
|
07 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-07.txt |
2018-12-13
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-13
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Oscar de Dios , Dhruv Dhody , Quintin Zhao , Olivier Dugeon , Daniel King , pce-chairs@ietf.org … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Oscar de Dios , Dhruv Dhody , Quintin Zhao , Olivier Dugeon , Daniel King , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Julien Meuric |
2018-12-13
|
07 | Daniel King | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-21
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-10-21
|
06 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-07-20
|
06 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-06.txt |
2015-07-28
|
05 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-05.txt |
2014-06-03
|
04 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-04.txt |
2013-02-25
|
03 | Daniel King | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-03.txt |
2012-01-16
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-02.txt |
2011-10-20
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-04-18
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-01.txt |
2010-10-18
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability-00.txt |