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 |