Skip to main content

Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2025-02-04
11 Mike McBride
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being …
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

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?

Strong support from individuals across a variety of affiliations. No opposition.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

Cisco has an implementation.

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, we've worked closely with spring. This draft is normative with RFC9524.
We've worked on this policy draft in PIM under agreement with the spring wg
due to pim's p2mp expertise and due to spring's draft backlog. The spring wg
has been included in all discussions and draft progression steps.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

N/A

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.

ID Nits

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?

Yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues.

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?

Standards Track as is the normative draft in spring.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

5017 Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR

13. 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.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97
) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No

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?

No

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).

No requirements for IANA

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.

N/A
2025-02-04
11 Mike McBride IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2025-02-04
11 Mike McBride IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2025-02-04
11 Mike McBride Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2025-02-02
11 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-11.txt
2025-02-02
11 Rishabh Parekh New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh)
2025-02-02
11 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2024-11-05
10 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-10.txt
2024-11-05
10 (System) New version approved
2024-11-05
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang , pim-chairs@ietf.org
2024-11-05
10 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2024-10-04
09 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to I-D Exists from AD Evaluation
2024-10-04
09 Gunter Van de Velde The document is considered out-of-charter and has been returned to the Working Group, pending a charter revision to incorporate the relevant work item.
2024-10-04
09 Gunter Van de Velde Tag Other - see Comment Log set.
2024-10-04
09 Gunter Van de Velde IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication
2024-08-06
09 Gunter Van de Velde IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being …
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

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?

Strong support from individuals across a variety of affiliations. No opposition.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

Cisco has an implementation.

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, we've worked closely with spring. This draft is normative with RFC9524.
We've worked on this policy draft in PIM under agreement with the spring wg
due to pim's p2mp expertise and due to spring's draft backlog. The spring wg
has been included in all discussions and draft progression steps.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

N/A

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.

ID Nits

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?

Yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues.

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?

Standards Track as is the normative draft in spring.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

5017 Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR

13. 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.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97
) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No

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?

No

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).

No requirements for IANA

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.

N/A
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being …
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

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?

Strong support from individuals across a variety of affiliations. No opposition.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

No known implementations

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, we've worked closely with spring. This draft is normative with RFC9524.
We've worked on this policy draft in PIM under agreement with the spring wg
due to pim's p2mp expertise and due to spring's draft backlog. The spring wg
has been included in all discussions and draft progression steps.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

N/A

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.

ID Nits

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?

Yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues.

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?

Standards Track as is the normative draft in spring.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

5017 Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR

13. 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.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97
) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No

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?

No

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).

No requirements for IANA

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.

N/A
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-05-16
09 (System) Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed)
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride Responsible AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride Notification list changed to mmcbride7@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride Document shepherd changed to Mike McBride
2024-05-16
09 Mike McBride
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being …
This version is dated 4 July 2022.

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?

Strong support from individuals across a variety of affiliations. No opposition.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy

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 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?

No known implementations

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, we've worked closely with spring. This draft is normative with RFC9524.
We've worked on this policy draft in PIM under agreement with the spring wg
due to pim's p2mp expertise and due to spring's draft backlog. The spring wg
has been included in all discussions and draft progression steps.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type

Not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools 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?

N/A

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.

ID Nits

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?

Yes

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?

No issues.

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?

Standards Track as is the normative draft in spring.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? 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.

5017 Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR

13. 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.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.

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?

N/A

17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97
) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.

No

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?

No

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).

No requirements for IANA

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.

N/A
2024-05-06
09 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-09.txt
2024-05-06
09 (System) New version approved
2024-05-06
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2024-05-06
09 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2024-05-06
08 Mike McBride IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2024-04-12
08 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-08.txt
2024-04-12
08 (System) New version approved
2024-04-12
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2024-04-12
08 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-10-11
07 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-07.txt
2023-10-11
07 (System) New version approved
2023-10-11
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-10-11
07 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-04-13
06 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-06.txt
2023-04-13
06 (System) New version approved
2023-04-13
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-04-13
06 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-01-03
05 (System) Document has expired
2022-07-02
05 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-05.txt
2022-07-02
05 (System) New version approved
2022-07-02
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2022-07-02
05 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2022-03-07
04 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-04.txt
2022-03-07
04 (System) New version approved
2022-03-07
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2022-03-07
04 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2022-02-24
03 (System) Document has expired
2021-08-23
03 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-03.txt
2021-08-23
03 (System) New version approved
2021-08-23
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-08-23
03 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2021-08-23
02 (System) Document has expired
2021-07-23
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy
2021-03-07
02 Stig Venaas Added to session: IETF-110: pim  Tue-1700
2021-02-19
02 Arvind Venkateswaran New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-02.txt
2021-02-19
02 (System) New version approved
2021-02-19
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-02-19
02 Arvind Venkateswaran Uploaded new revision
2020-11-12
01 Stig Venaas Added to session: IETF-109: pim  Mon-1600
2020-10-30
01 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-01.txt
2020-10-30
01 (System) New version approved
2020-10-30
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui Zhang , Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Rishabh Parekh
2020-10-30
01 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2020-07-27
00 Rishabh Parekh This document now replaces draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy instead of None
2020-07-27
00 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00.txt
2020-07-27
00 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh)
2020-07-27
00 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision