Skip to main content

Host Threats to Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)
draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2008-07-08
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-07-08
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-07-08
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-07-08
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-07-08
04 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2008-07-08
04 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-06-06
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-06-05
2008-06-05
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-06-05
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-06-05
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-06-05
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-06-05
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-06-04
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-06-04
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-06-04
04 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-06-04
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-06-04
04 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss-discuss, and I expect to clear at or before the telechat. 

The document references sparse mode and bidirectional PIM, but …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss-discuss, and I expect to clear at or before the telechat. 

The document references sparse mode and bidirectional PIM, but not dense mode.
Is this intentional, or am I reading too much into it?
2008-06-04
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-06-03
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-06-03
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2008-05-28
04 David Ward State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by David Ward
2008-05-28
04 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Ward
2008-05-28
04 David Ward Ballot has been issued by David Ward
2008-05-28
04 David Ward Created "Approve" ballot
2008-05-23
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-05-09
04 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand
this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-05-09
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-05-09
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-05-09
04 David Ward State Changes to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by David Ward
2008-05-09
04 David Ward Last Call was requested by David Ward
2008-05-09
04 David Ward Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-06-05 by David Ward
2008-05-08
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-04.txt
2008-04-20
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Stefan Santesson.
2008-03-26
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-03-19
04 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-03-13
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2008-03-13
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2008-03-12
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-03-11
04 David Ward Last Call was requested by David Ward
2008-03-11
04 David Ward State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by David Ward
2008-03-11
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-03-11
04 (System) Last call text was added
2008-03-11
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-11-01
04 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft
(ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready …
PROTO Write-up

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft
(ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to
the IESG for publication?

Yes and yes

2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key
non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

The draft has been reviewed by several WG members. It has not specifically
been reviewed by non-WG members, but we believe the review is sufficient
for this informational document.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity,
someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you
believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps
you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your
issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it
still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the
write-up.

No

5) 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?

Several key people in the WG have provided feedback on the document. There
have been two WG last calls. In the first there were a couple of people
raising some issues which have been addressed in the latest revision (03).
None of the people that had issues with revision 01 in the first last
call responded to the second. Besides those, there were only two responses
supporting the document. While there have been few people responding,
the chairs believe it's a good and useful document, and we believe the
support is sufficient for publishing it as informational.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email to the Responsible Area Director.

No

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID
Checklist items ?

Yes

8) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are
there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the
RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it
will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication
as RFCs.)

Some of the references are to IDs. All normative references are RFCs
(one of them references the BIDIR ID which is now an RFC).

9) What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard,
Informational?)

Informational

10) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections...

Not applicable
2007-11-01
04 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2007-10-10
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-03.txt
2007-10-05
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-02.txt
2007-06-15
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-01.txt
2006-10-17
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-00.txt