Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Native IP Networks
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-30
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-01
|
30 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-30.txt |
2024-02-01
|
30 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2024-02-01
|
30 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-31
|
29 | Ned Smith | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ned Smith. Sent review to list. |
2024-01-30
|
29 | Sheng Jiang | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sheng Jiang. Sent review to list. |
2024-01-26
|
29 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Ned Smith |
2024-01-15
|
29 | Derrell Piper | Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Derrell Piper was rejected |
2024-01-12
|
29 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Derrell Piper |
2024-01-08
|
29 | Stefan Santesson | Assignment of request for Early review by SECDIR to Stefan Santesson was rejected |
2024-01-06
|
29 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson |
2024-01-04
|
29 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sheng Jiang |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? It represents a strong concurrence of a few but that is understandable for a specialized document that is applicable for Native-IP only. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was a discussion on the document's status as a proposed standard. Some suggested it should be of experimental status. Authors/WG want to proceed with the proposed standard for now. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There is a planned implementation for one vendor as listed in Section 12. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Yes, the document is closely related to IDR WG. The WG was notified at the time of WGLC as well as before. Susan Hares did a review as well - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Lvj2KNS6-qBA8ewiDQVF38QlR58/ and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/0OANc4m45RIaxJ5kMankYeu9Llg/ 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable! 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? Not applicable! 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Not applicable! ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document is needed, clearly written and complete. Based on the shepherd, the document is better suited as experimental, but they are likely in the rough. That being said, the document is ready to be handed off! 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Early RTGDIR review done. Requested early security and ops review. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard as it extends PCECC to support Native-IP scenarios. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. IPR disclosure was requested during WG adoption and WGLC 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, 5 authors! 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) There are some instances of long lines in figures/tables. I have asked authors to fix that in the next update. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? Not applicable! 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. Not applicable! 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? Not applicable! 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body and has been reviewed. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No need for Designated Expert [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
2023-12-29
|
29 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? It represents a strong concurrence of a few but that is understandable for a specialized document that is applicable for Native-IP only. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was a discussion on the document's status as a proposed standard. Some suggested it should be of experimental status. Authors/WG want to proceed with the proposed standard for now. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There is a planned implementation for one vendor as listed in Section 12. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Yes, the document is closely related to IDR WG. The WG was notified at the time of WGLC as well as before. Susan Hares did a review as well - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Lvj2KNS6-qBA8ewiDQVF38QlR58/ and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/0OANc4m45RIaxJ5kMankYeu9Llg/ 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable! 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? Not applicable! 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Not applicable! ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? The document is needed, clearly written and complete. Based on the shepherd, the document is better suited as experimental, but they are likely in the rough. That being said, the document is ready to be handed off! 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Early RTGDIR review done. Requested early security and ops review. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard as it extends PCECC to support Native-IP scenarios. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes. IPR disclosure was requested during WG adoption and WGLC 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes, 5 authors! 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) There are some instances of long lines in figures/tables. I have asked authors to fix that in the next update. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? Not applicable! 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. Not applicable! 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? Not applicable! 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA section is consistent with the document's body and has been reviewed. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No need for Designated Expert [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-12-28
|
29 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-29.txt |
2023-12-28
|
29 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-12-28
|
29 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-15
|
28 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-28.txt |
2023-11-15
|
28 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-11-15
|
28 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-14
|
27 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-27.txt |
2023-11-14
|
27 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-11-14
|
27 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-02
|
26 | Dhruv Dhody | Added to session: IETF-118: pce Thu-1400 |
2023-10-22
|
26 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-26.txt |
2023-10-22
|
26 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-22
|
26 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2023-10-22
|
26 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-31
|
25 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2023-08-31
|
25 | Dhruv Dhody | Notification list changed to dd@dhruvdhody.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-08-31
|
25 | Dhruv Dhody | Document shepherd changed to Dhruv Dhody |
2023-08-21
|
25 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25.txt |
2023-08-21
|
25 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-08-21
|
25 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-25
|
24 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-24.txt |
2023-07-25
|
24 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-25
|
24 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2023-07-25
|
24 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-21
|
23 | Ines Robles | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. |
2023-06-16
|
23 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2023-06-13
|
23 | Carlos Pignataro | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2023-06-12
|
23 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2023-06-12
|
23 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-23.txt |
2023-06-12
|
23 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-06-12
|
23 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang , pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2023-06-12
|
23 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-12
|
22 | Dhruv Dhody | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-06-12
|
22 | Dhruv Dhody | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-06-12
|
22 | Dhruv Dhody | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-06-12
|
22 | Dhruv Dhody | IPR Poll - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/TYa9vm91Mrg9pCUAUucWUaGJHyI/ |
2023-06-12
|
22 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-06-06
|
22 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-22.txt |
2023-06-06
|
22 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-06-06
|
22 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-22
|
21 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-21.txt |
2023-05-22
|
21 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-05-22
|
21 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-16
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-04-06
|
20 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20.txt |
2023-04-06
|
20 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2023-04-06
|
20 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-27
|
19 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-09-21
|
19 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-19.txt |
2022-09-21
|
19 | Aijun Wang | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2022-09-21
|
19 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-21
|
18 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-20
|
18 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-18.txt |
2022-03-20
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-20
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2022-03-20
|
18 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2022-02-06
|
17 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-17.txt |
2022-02-06
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-02-06
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2022-02-06
|
17 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-15
|
16 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-16.txt |
2021-08-15
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-08-15
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2021-08-15
|
16 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-28
|
15 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-15.txt |
2021-07-28
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-28
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2021-07-28
|
15 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-20
|
14 | Dhruv Dhody | Added to session: IETF-111: pce Mon-1430 |
2021-06-06
|
14 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-14.txt |
2021-06-06
|
14 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Aijun Wang) |
2021-06-06
|
14 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-26
|
13 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-13.txt |
2021-03-26
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-26
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2021-03-26
|
13 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-25
|
12 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-12.txt |
2021-03-25
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-25
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2021-03-25
|
12 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-08
|
11 | Dhruv Dhody | Added to session: IETF-110: pce Wed-1300 |
2021-02-06
|
11 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-11.txt |
2021-02-06
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-06
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2021-02-06
|
11 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-04
|
10 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-10.txt |
2021-02-04
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-04
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2021-02-04
|
10 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-20
|
09 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-09.txt |
2020-10-20
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-20
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ren Tan , Aijun Wang , Sheng Fang |
2020-10-20
|
09 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-13
|
08 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-08.txt |
2020-09-13
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-13
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chun Zhu , Aijun Wang , Boris Khasanov , Ren Tan , Sheng Fang |
2020-09-13
|
08 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-10
|
07 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-07.txt |
2020-09-10
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-10
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chun Zhu , Sheng Fang , Boris Khasanov , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Aijun Wang |
2020-09-10
|
07 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-18
|
06 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-06.txt |
2020-08-18
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-08-18
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Aijun Wang , Chun Zhu , Sheng Fang , Boris Khasanov |
2020-08-18
|
06 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-17
|
05 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-05.txt |
2020-02-17
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-17
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sudhir Cheruathur , Aijun Wang , Sheng Fang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2020-02-17
|
05 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-25
|
04 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04.txt |
2019-08-25
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-25
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sudhir Cheruathur , Sheng Fang , Boris Khasanov , Chun Zhu , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Aijun Wang |
2019-08-25
|
04 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-25
|
03 | Dhruv Dhody | This document now replaces draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip instead of None |
2019-03-07
|
03 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-03.txt |
2019-03-07
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-07
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sheng Fang , Boris Khasanov , Sudhir Cheruathur , Aijun Wang , Chun Zhu |
2019-03-07
|
03 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-15
|
02 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-02.txt |
2018-11-15
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-15
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Boris Khasanov , Sudhir Cheruathur , Aijun Wang , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Chun Zhu |
2018-11-15
|
02 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-27
|
01 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-01.txt |
2018-06-27
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-06-27
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Boris Khasanov , Sudhir Cheruathur , Aijun Wang , Chun Zhu |
2018-06-27
|
01 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |
2018-06-26
|
00 | Aijun Wang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-00.txt |
2018-06-26
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-06-25
|
00 | Aijun Wang | Set submitter to "Aijun Wang ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: pce-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-06-25
|
00 | Aijun Wang | Uploaded new revision |