Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-20
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2022-09-26
|
20 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed) |
2022-09-26
|
20 | John Scudder | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of authors 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 a specialized document that is applicable for GMPLS only. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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)? An existing implementation is specified in the document. ### Additional Reviews 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? No 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. No 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]? No 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. N/A ### 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? This document has been by both chairs and had an early RTGDIR review. It has been updated and it is ready to hand off. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? N/A 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus standards track makes sense. All attributes in Datatracker are set correctly. 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. There are 2 IPR disclosures - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls. WG was polled for IPR - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/l1uH8ro6gXat36991BucTidxcXI/ Victor - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uFYVp24GxGL4o1vZWFbQI8f-lws/ Young - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WOmYGgFtY8ZFsBBtOUHy3OW7aVY/ Haomian - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/L035l8kR7flfAyi_D550R8LvInU/ Zafar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2DstCbGU7FsoCI5seu_-4-liYEk/ Oscar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3Vik_UPY0WmHIZ620PMXLXR5XXE/ 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Yes. Only 5 authors. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9] and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. No nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? 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? None 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10], [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them. None 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags] is in a post-WGLC state and waiting for AD to progress at the time of the current shepherd report. 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][12]). 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78 [8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2022-06-29
|
20 | Dhruv Dhody | # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering … # Document Shepherd Writeup *This version is dated 8 April 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of authors 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 a specialized document that is applicable for GMPLS only. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No 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)? An existing implementation is specified in the document. ### Additional Reviews 5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external organizations? Have those reviews occurred? No 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. No 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]? No 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. N/A ### 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? This document has been by both chairs and had an early RTGDIR review. It has been updated and it is ready to hand off. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific attention from subsequent reviews? N/A 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard This I-D defines a protocol extension and thus standards track makes sense. All attributes in Datatracker are set correctly. 12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant emails. There are 2 IPR disclosures - https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls. WG was polled for IPR - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/l1uH8ro6gXat36991BucTidxcXI/ Victor - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uFYVp24GxGL4o1vZWFbQI8f-lws/ Young - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WOmYGgFtY8ZFsBBtOUHy3OW7aVY/ Haomian - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/L035l8kR7flfAyi_D550R8LvInU/ Zafar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2DstCbGU7FsoCI5seu_-4-liYEk/ Oscar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3Vik_UPY0WmHIZ620PMXLXR5XXE/ 13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5, please provide a justification. Yes. Only 5 authors. 14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9] and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts). Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire guidelines document. No nits. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? 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? None 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10], [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them. None 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the plan for their completion? [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags] is in a post-WGLC state and waiting for AD to progress at the time of the current shepherd report. 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][12]). 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78 [8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html |
2022-06-27
|
20 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-20.txt |
2022-06-27
|
20 | Haomian Zheng | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-06-27
|
20 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-22
|
19 | Susan Hares | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list. |
2022-06-17
|
19 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19.txt |
2022-06-17
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-06-17
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , Oscar de Dios , Victor Lopez , Young Lee , Zafar Ali |
2022-06-17
|
19 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-16
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2022-06-16
|
18 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2022-06-16
|
18 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2022-06-16
|
18 | Dhruv Dhody | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2022-06-15
|
18 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-18.txt |
2022-06-15
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-06-15
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , Oscar de Dios , Victor Lopez , Young Lee , Zafar Ali |
2022-06-15
|
18 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-02-10
|
17 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-17.txt |
2022-02-10
|
17 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2022-02-10
|
17 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | Notification list changed to dd@dhruvdhody.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | Document shepherd changed to Dhruv Dhody |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | IPR Poll Victor - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uFYVp24GxGL4o1vZWFbQI8f-lws/ Young - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WOmYGgFtY8ZFsBBtOUHy3OW7aVY/ Haomian - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/L035l8kR7flfAyi_D550R8LvInU/ Zafar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2DstCbGU7FsoCI5seu_-4-liYEk/ Oscar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3Vik_UPY0WmHIZ620PMXLXR5XXE/ |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2022-02-04
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2022-02-02
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | IPR Poll Victor - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uFYVp24GxGL4o1vZWFbQI8f-lws/ Young - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WOmYGgFtY8ZFsBBtOUHy3OW7aVY/ Haomian - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/L035l8kR7flfAyi_D550R8LvInU/ Zafar - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2DstCbGU7FsoCI5seu_-4-liYEk/ Oscar - pending |
2022-01-18
|
16 | Dhruv Dhody | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2021-12-27
|
16 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-16.txt |
2021-12-27
|
16 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-12-27
|
16 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2021-12-25
|
15 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-06-23
|
15 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-15.txt |
2021-06-23
|
15 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Haomian Zheng) |
2021-06-23
|
15 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-12-28
|
14 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-14.txt |
2020-12-28
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-12-28
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , Oscar de Dios , Victor Lopez , Young Lee , Zafar Ali |
2020-12-28
|
14 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-25
|
13 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-04-23
|
13 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-13.txt |
2020-04-23
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-23
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , Oscar de Dios , Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez , Zafar Ali |
2020-04-23
|
13 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-28
|
12 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-12.txt |
2019-10-28
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-28
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Oscar de Dios , Haomian Zheng , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee , Victor Lopezalvarez |
2019-10-28
|
12 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-26
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-03-25
|
11 | Dhruv Dhody | This document now replaces draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls, draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp instead of None |
2019-03-25
|
11 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-11.txt |
2019-03-25
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-25
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee , Ramon Casellas |
2019-03-25
|
11 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-07
|
10 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-10.txt |
2019-03-07
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-07
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Young Lee , Ramon Casellas |
2019-03-07
|
10 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-05
|
09 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-09.txt |
2018-12-05
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-05
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Ramon … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Ramon Casellas |
2018-12-05
|
09 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-30
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-02-26
|
08 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-08.txt |
2018-02-26
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-26
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Ramon … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Ramon Casellas |
2018-02-26
|
08 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2018-02-13
|
07 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-07.txt |
2018-02-13
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-13
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , pce-chairs@ietf.org … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ramon Casellas |
2018-02-13
|
07 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-13
|
06 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-06.txt |
2017-11-13
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-11-13
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Ramon … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Zafar Ali , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Xian Zhang , Ramon Casellas |
2017-11-13
|
06 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-11-13
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-05-11
|
05 | Young Lee | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-05.txt |
2017-05-11
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-05-11
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ramon Casellas |
2017-05-11
|
05 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2017-05-11
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Young Lee , Xian Zhang , Oscar de Dios , Fatai Zhang , Zafar Ali , pce-chairs@ietf.org, Ramon Casellas |
2017-05-11
|
05 | Young Lee | Uploaded new revision |
2015-10-15
|
04 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-04.txt |
2015-07-05
|
03 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-03.txt |
2015-01-07
|
02 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-02.txt |
2014-07-03
|
01 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-01.txt |
2013-12-04
|
00 | Xian Zhang | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt |