Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-03-05
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2018-02-28
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2018-02-28
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2018-01-23
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2018-01-23
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2018-01-22
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2018-01-19
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2018-01-18
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2018-01-18
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2018-01-18
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2018-01-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2018-01-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2018-01-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2018-01-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-01-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-01-18
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2018-01-11
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Yu. |
2018-01-11
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2018-01-10
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-01-10
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-01-10
|
05 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt |
2018-01-10
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-01-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Adrian Farrel , Daniel King |
2018-01-10
|
05 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I'd like to see the Gen-ART reviewer's comment addressed per the discussion on the list. |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my discuss |
2018-01-10
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2018-01-09
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-01-09
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2018-01-08
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Like EKR I'm confused / concerned about what happens if 2 experiments choose the same codepoint -- while there isn't really anything that … [Ballot comment] Like EKR I'm confused / concerned about what happens if 2 experiments choose the same codepoint -- while there isn't really anything that the document can really do to prevent it, I think that it is worth having a bit more text mentioning that implementors should consider this, and e.g experimental use should handle failures differently to production. Seeing as EKR is carrying the DISCUSS I'll ballot NoObj and follow along. |
2018-01-08
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-01-08
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-01-08
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] What happens when two deployments independently select the same experiment code point with different semantics? Is there some way to detect that, or … [Ballot discuss] What happens when two deployments independently select the same experiment code point with different semantics? Is there some way to detect that, or do they just get confused? This seems like it it's fine in a closed environment, but unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in this text that actually requires that. |
2018-01-08
|
04 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-01-08
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2018-01-04
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-01-04
|
04 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-01-01
|
04 | Scott Bradner | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. Sent review to list. |
2017-12-29
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2017-12-28
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2017-12-28
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu |
2017-12-28
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2017-12-25
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2017-12-25
|
04 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04. 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-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04. 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. All of the actions in the current draft document related to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page which is located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ First, in the PCEP Messages registry, two changes are to be made: The registration procedure for the registry will be changed to read as follows: 0-251 IETF Review 252-255 Experimental Use In addition, the values 252-255 in the registry will be marked accordingly. Second, in the PCEP Objects registry, two changes are to be made: The registration procedure for the registry will be changed to read as follows: 0-247 IETF Review 248-255 Experimental Use In addition, the values 248-255 in the registry will be marked accordingly. Third, in the PCEP TKVs registry, two changes are to be made: The registration procedure for the registry will be changed to read as follows: 0-65503 IETF Review 65504-65535 Experimental Use In addition, the values 65504-65535 in the registry will be marked accordingly. The IANA Services Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2017-12-22
|
04 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list. |
2017-12-20
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2017-12-20
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
2017-12-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2017-12-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2017-12-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2017-12-19
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-12-19
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2017-12-19
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-28): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, Jonathan Hardwick , pce@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-12-28): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, Jonathan Hardwick , pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to consider the following document: - 'Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)' 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 2017-12-28. 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 IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies for these three registries to mark some of the code points as assigned for Experimental Use. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-01-11 |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
2017-12-14
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2017-11-28
|
04 | Ben Niven-Jenkins | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins. Sent review to list. |
2017-11-27
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04.txt |
2017-11-27
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-27
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Adrian Farrel , Daniel King |
2017-11-27
|
04 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-13
|
03 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2017-11-13
|
03 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ben Niven-Jenkins |
2017-11-13
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2017-11-13
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | (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? … (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. This is appropriate because the draft affects the IANA registries for PCEP protocol numbers. The title page identifies the draft as Standards 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 This document updates RFC5440 by marking some of the code points in the following PCEP sub-registries for experimental use. - PCEP message types. - PCEP object types. - PCEP TLV types. Working Group Summary PCEP implementers have been struggling for a while without an option to use experimental code points in their early implementations. This draft was welcomed by everyone in the working group as a much-needed improvement. Document Quality Several implementers have confirmed that they intend to start making immediate use of the experimental code points. Adrian Farrel did a close review and provided guidance on the right form of words to pass to IANA. He subsequently became a co-author. Personnel Jonathan Hardwick 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. I reviewed the document as working group last call. The document was sound, but I requested a few clarifications to the text. The authors addressed my comments promptly, and I now believe the document is ready to be published. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (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. (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. None. (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? Good consensus of several implementers and a number of others. (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. (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. None. (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? No. (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. (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. No. The document updates RFC 5440 but does not change its status. (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 whole document concerns IANA considerations. The instructions to IANA are clear. (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. None. (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. |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Jonathan Hardwick | Changed document writeup |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03.txt |
2017-11-12
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-12
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Adrian Farrel , Daniel King |
2017-11-12
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-11
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2017-11-11
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Notification list changed to Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com> |
2017-11-11
|
02 | Jonathan Hardwick | Document shepherd changed to Jonathan Hardwick |
2017-10-28
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-08-23
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02.txt |
2017-08-23
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-23
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King , pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-08-23
|
02 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-02
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01.txt |
2017-07-02
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-07-02
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dhruv Dhody , Daniel King |
2017-07-02
|
01 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |
2017-04-24
|
00 | Jonathan Hardwick | This document now replaces draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints instead of None |
2017-04-24
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-00.txt |
2017-04-24
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2017-04-24
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | Set submitter to "Dhruv Dhody ", replaces to draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2017-04-24
|
00 | Dhruv Dhody | Uploaded new revision |