SR Replication segment for Multi-point Service Delivery
draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-19
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-02-22
|
(System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment and RFC 9524, changed IESG state to RFC … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment and RFC 9524, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
|
2024-02-14
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2024-01-26
|
19 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Sarah Banks Telechat OPSDIR review |
2024-01-26
|
19 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue |
2024-01-19
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2023-11-20
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-10-31
|
19 | Daniam Henriques | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Lou Berger Last Call RTGDIR review |
2023-10-31
|
19 | Daniam Henriques | Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-08-29
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment | |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Jim Guichard | I have completed final AD review and all comments have been addressed. Approved. |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-19.txt |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-28
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-08-28
|
19 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-28
|
18 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16 CC @larseggert Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ). … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16 CC @larseggert Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ). ## Comments ### Section 2, paragraph 18 ``` In principle it is possible for different Replication segments to replicate packets to the same Replication segment on a Downstream node. However, such usage is intentionally left out of scope of this document. ``` What was the intent of leaving this out? There seems to be complexity here that can be abused, in which case I would have expected this to either be explicitly forbidden or discussed in sufficient detail to understand (and mitigate) the issues. ### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 2 ``` An implementation of Replication segment for SRv6 MUST enforce these same restrictions and exceptions. Though this specification does not use any extension header a future extension may do so and MUST support the exception (2) above. ``` It is unusual for a spec to limit what a future extension can do in this way (and often it turns out to be too limiting) - why is this content needed in this document? ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Section 2, paragraph 18 ``` an indicator role of the node is Leaf. The operation performed on incoming Replication SID is NEXT https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/ rfc8402#section-2. At an egress node, the Replication SID MAY be ``` Document uses `eref` elements that convert into plaintext URLs in the document (above and elsewhere), which make things difficult to read. Convert to proper references? ### Grammar/style #### Section 1.1, paragraph 5 ``` des the ingress (Root) node of a multi-point service and the egress (Leaf) no ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 2.1, paragraph 8 ``` ote that this H.Encaps.Red is independent from the replication segment – it i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean "independent of"? #### Section 2.2, paragraph 7 ``` is variant of End behavior. The pseudo-code in this section follows the conv ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 1 ``` this draft does not specify any inter-operable elements of Replication segme ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. #### Section 8.2, paragraph 4 ``` 6, using N-SID6, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to ^^^^^^^^ ``` A determiner may be missing. #### "A.1.", paragraph 11 ``` b8:cccc:6:F6::0, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to ^^^^^^^^ ``` A determiner may be missing. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2023-08-28
|
18 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2023-08-25
|
18 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-18.txt |
2023-08-25
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-25
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-08-25
|
18 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-24
|
17 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot comment] Moving this to a new objection thanks to the update to the security text. My thanks to the authors for making the effort … [Ballot comment] Moving this to a new objection thanks to the update to the security text. My thanks to the authors for making the effort to clearly document the security considerations - and while I still feel that there are major problems with srv6 security in general - I don't feel that they can be further dealt with in the context of this document. |
2023-08-24
|
17 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Andrew Alston has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2023-08-22
|
17 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-17.txt |
2023-08-22
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-22
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-08-22
|
17 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-21
|
16 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review. Thanks for the refined Security Considerations language. I support Andrew Alston DISCUSS position. |
2023-08-21
|
16 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2023-08-10
|
16 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] ### S2.2.1 S01. If (Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv4) OR Upper-Layer header type == … [Ballot comment] ### S2.2.1 S01. If (Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv4) OR Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv6) ) { seems suspicious. I think the second "4" should probably be "41"? ### S5 ULAs are not "non-routable"; they're "non-globally-routable". |
2023-08-10
|
16 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Erik Kline has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2023-08-10
|
16 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2023-08-04
|
16 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot discuss] Firstly, thanks for the security section updates - that moves me from an abstain to a discuss. I would like to this discuss … [Ballot discuss] Firstly, thanks for the security section updates - that moves me from an abstain to a discuss. I would like to this discuss text: "Given the definition of the Replication segment in this document, an attacker subverting ingress filter above cannot take advantage of a stack of replication segments to perform amplification attacks nor link exhaustion attacks. Replication segment trees always terminate at a Leaf or Bud node resulting in a decapsulation." Here is issue with this - what happens post decapsulation. I.E - if I were to take an IPv4 packet - encapsulate it in a replication SID - with a source host I wished to attack, and a destination address of an attached broadcast - would the IPv4 packet be processed post de-cap. If the packets post de-cap do indeed get forwarded, the attack vector is still entirely real. The SRv6 is used to tunnel packets pass things like IP directed broadcast protections, unicast reverse path filtering etc, and the de-cap ensures they get acted on. If I've missed something here or am off in my analysis - apologies - but if not - the above text needs to be rectified so that this attack vector is made clear. |
2023-08-04
|
16 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Andrew Alston has been changed to Discuss from Abstain |
2023-08-04
|
16 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16 CC @larseggert Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ). … [Ballot discuss] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16 CC @larseggert Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ). ## Discuss ### Paragraph 0 This document introduces packet replication functionality into SR networks. This significantly increases and complicates the attack surface of the technology while at the same time introducing severe new misconfiguration possibilities (e.g., multicast amplification loops that can lead to congestion collapse of the network.) This document does not adequately describe and discuss these issues. Additionally, this documents needs to specify suitable countermeasures - it is not sufficient to leave this up to unspecified control plane mechanisms. |
2023-08-04
|
16 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] ## Comments ### Section 2, paragraph 18 ``` In principle it is possible for different Replication segments to replicate … [Ballot comment] ## Comments ### Section 2, paragraph 18 ``` In principle it is possible for different Replication segments to replicate packets to the same Replication segment on a Downstream node. However, such usage is intentionally left out of scope of this document. ``` What was the intent of leaving this out? There seems to be complexity here that can be abused, in which case I would have expected this to either be explicitly forbidden or discussed in sufficient detail to understand (and mitigate) the issues. ### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 2 ``` An implementation of Replication segment for SRv6 MUST enforce these same restrictions and exceptions. Though this specification does not use any extension header a future extension may do so and MUST support the exception (2) above. ``` It is unusual for a spec to limit what a future extension can do in this way (and often it turns out to be too limiting) - why is this content needed in this document? ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Section 2, paragraph 18 ``` an indicator role of the node is Leaf. The operation performed on incoming Replication SID is NEXT https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/ rfc8402#section-2. At an egress node, the Replication SID MAY be ``` Document uses `eref` elements that convert into plaintext URLs in the document (above and elsewhere), which make things difficult to read. Convert to proper references? ### Grammar/style #### Section 1.1, paragraph 5 ``` des the ingress (Root) node of a multi-point service and the egress (Leaf) no ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 2.1, paragraph 8 ``` ote that this H.Encaps.Red is independent from the replication segment – it i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean "independent of"? #### Section 2.2, paragraph 7 ``` is variant of End behavior. The pseudo-code in this section follows the conv ^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 1 ``` this draft does not specify any inter-operable elements of Replication segme ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. #### Section 8.2, paragraph 4 ``` 6, using N-SID6, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to ^^^^^^^^ ``` A determiner may be missing. #### "A.1.", paragraph 11 ``` b8:cccc:6:F6::0, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to ^^^^^^^^ ``` A determiner may be missing. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2023-08-04
|
16 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2023-07-31
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2023-07-31
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2023-07-31
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2023-07-31
|
16 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16.txt |
2023-07-31
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-31
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-07-31
|
16 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-06
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Dan Voyer, Clarence Filsfils, Rishabh Parekh, Hooman Bidgoli, Zhaohui Zhang (IESG state changed) |
2023-07-06
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2023-07-06
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot discuss] I appreciate the mention of RFC8402 and RFC8754’s Security Considerations. Both reiterate the need to filter traffic at the SR domain boundary … [Ballot discuss] I appreciate the mention of RFC8402 and RFC8754’s Security Considerations. Both reiterate the need to filter traffic at the SR domain boundary and the notion that trusting the nodes in the SR domain. However, this document is introducing new SR behavior (replication). This new behavior introduces additional DoS risk which should be documented. |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review. I support Erik Kline’s DISCUSS position. ** Section 2.2.1. Typo. s/secion/section/ ** Section 2.2.1. … [Ballot comment] Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review. I support Erik Kline’s DISCUSS position. ** Section 2.2.1. Typo. s/secion/section/ ** Section 2.2.1. Please don’t use RFC2119 keywords in the non-normative S07-08 text. |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Erik Kline | [Ballot discuss] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Discuss … [Ballot discuss] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Discuss ### S2.2.1 * I think there's some clarification required about what a Replication SID does if Segments Left is > 0. I can't see where Segments Left is decremented prior to packet duplication and so it looks like Replicate() would effectively H.Encaps[.Red] packets with an (inner) SRH that still points to the Replication SID? * At S20, if Segments Left is still > 0 (even after whatever S16 is supposed to be doing), why would you discard all of the extension headers? I think the S14-S21 stuff is trying to say "if this Replication node is a leaf or a bud include it in the Replication List". If that's true I suspect there are clearer ways to express that; you could just redefine the replication list inside Replicate() and let implementers figure out how to apply optimizations. ### A.2.1 * Please clarify which source address R6 uses to formulate the Echo Reply. I'm a little unclear on the mental model here. The generation of ICMP errors is prohibited because the Replication SID is analogized to a multicast address in this context. Pinging a multicast address is of course fine, but the echo requester knows to expect the source address of replies to be any unicast address. I'm assuming a requester needs to be modified to know that echo replies cannot come from the Replication SID in this case? Or is the Replication SID intended to be the source address of Echo Replies here, as if it's some kind of conceptual "unicast whenever we want but also multicast whenever say" kind of address? |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments ### S2/S2.2 * Given that Replicate() is implemented in terms of encapsulation in another SRH it's probably good to cite some text about the MTU considerations for operators. Probably the usual "size your MTU big enough or expect trouble" type of advice is really all that can be said. ### S2/S6 * It seems like nothing in the control plane representation information can prevent a chain of replication SIDs forming a loop. It should probably be noted that this can occur, looping and replicating packets until the Hop Limit stops it, if there is no function elsewhere that prevents the formation of loops when setting up the control plane (not necessarily a problem when a PCE is programming things, but in the "provisioned locally on a node" case it might be easier to make a mistake). ## Nits ### S1.1 * s/IPV6/IPv6/ ### S2.2 * s/pen-ultimate/penultimate/ |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Martin Duke | [Ballot comment] Thanks to Wes Eddy for the TSVART review. |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot comment] I've been back and forth on this having read the document several times - and I have to join Warren in an abstention … [Ballot comment] I've been back and forth on this having read the document several times - and I have to join Warren in an abstention here - for very similar reasons. While I view the security issues in this document as stemming from a former document (RFC8402) - the way I see it, we're building on quicksand here. Yes, RFC8402 says that SRv6 must run in a trusted domain - however, the practical methods of enforcing the trusted domain seem woefully lacking, and then, in addition to that when dealing with replication we then compound the issues created by potential packet injection. I simply cannot see how I can no-object to this, however, I also fully understand the criteria for discuss ballots, and since these issues stem from RFC8402 I do not feel that I'm on solid ground balloting discuss. As such, I must abstain. |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] I am balloting Abstain (in the "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the … [Ballot comment] I am balloting Abstain (in the "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others." sense) on this document as I cannot in good conscience ballot NoObj. The Security Consideration hinge on "An SR domain operates within an assumed trust domain as specified in Security Considerations of RFC 8402. Traffic must be filtered at SR domain boundaries to prevent malicious replication of packets." Firstly I'll note that this isn't really what the Security Considerations section of RFC8042 actually says (it is really short, but says: "**By default**, SR operates within a trusted domain. Traffic MUST be filtered at the domain boundaries." (emphasis mine)), but secondly, this talks about replication of traffic (AKA a DoS amplifier). I believe that the document (and SR in general) needs to do a much better job of discussing the security / DoS implications of what happens when an attacker is able to inject traffic into the SR domain (e.g because they have 0wned a node within the network. I'm balloting Abstain instead of DISCUSS because I've raised this objection multiple times on multiple document, and no longer have the stomach to have this fight yet again. |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Mohit Sethi | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi. Sent review to list. |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, (1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction Replication segment is a new type of segment for Segment Routing(SR) [RFC8402], … [Ballot comment] Hi, (1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction Replication segment is a new type of segment for Segment Routing(SR) [RFC8402], which allows a node (henceforth called a Replication node) to replicate packets to a set of other nodes (called Downstream nodes) in a Segment Routing Domain. Replication segments provide building blocks for Point-to-Multipoint Service delivery via SR Point-to-Multipoint (SR P2MP) policy. A Replication segment can replicate packets to directly connected nodes or to downstream nodes (without need for state on the transit routers). This document focuses on the Replication segment building block. The use of one or more stitched Replication segments constructed for SR P2MP Policy tree is specified in [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]. This document focuses on specifying replication behavior in an SR domain. The management of IP multicast groups, building IP multicast trees, and performing multicast congestion control are out of scope of this document. This isn't directly my technology area, but I found this document, at least up to section 2.2.1 to be quite heavy going. I don't have any great suggestions on how to significantly improve this, but found the examples helpful and wished that I had looked at them first. So, perhaps include a forward reference to them at the end of the introduction section. Minor level comments: (2) p 5, sec 2.1. SR-MPLS data plane SIDs MAY be added before the downstream SR-MPLS Replication SID in order to guide a packet from a non-adjacent SR node to a Replication node. A Replication node MAY replicate a packet to a non-adjacent Downstream node using SIDs it inserts in the copy preceding the downstream Replication SID. The Downstream node may be a leaf node of the Replication segment, or another Replication node, or both in case of bud node. A Replication node MAY use an Anycast SID or BGP PeerSet SID in segment list to send a replicated packet to one downstream Replication node in an Anycast set if and only if all nodes in the set have an identical Replication SID and reach the same set of receivers. For some use cases, there MAY be SIDs after the Replication SID in the segment list of a packet. These SIDs are used only by the Leaf/Bud nodes to forward a packet off the tree independent of the Replication SID. Coordination regarding the absence or presence and value of context information for Leaf/Bud nodes is outside the scope of this document. As a minor tweak to readability, I did wondering whether the above paragraph could be split into something more like a list, i.e., something like: SIDs MAY ... - A Repliaction node MAY ... - A Replication node MAY ... - For some use cases, there MAY ... Regards, Rob |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2023-07-05
|
15 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-06-30
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2023-06-28
|
15 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15 Thank you for the work put into this document. It is quite dense and not … [Ballot comment] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15 Thank you for the work put into this document. It is quite dense and not too easy to read though, perhaps adding some graphics? Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and one nit. Special thanks to Mankamana Prasad Mishra for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS ## Section 1 The reader would probably welcome use case of this protocol: is it for multicast ? or more like a span port for monitoring/troubleshooting ? Waiting until section 3 is not really reader friendly. ## Section 2 `When the PCE signals a Replication segment to its node` what is 'its node' ? ## Section 2.2 In the 2nd paragraph, is the segment left field also decremented ? ## Section 2.2.3 Thanks for this section (no need to reply). # NITS ## Section 4.2 s/has all the Must and SHOULD clause/has all the MUST and SHOULD clauses/ ? |
2023-06-28
|
15 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2023-06-21
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2023-06-20
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2023-06-20
|
15 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15.txt |
2023-06-20
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-06-20
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-06-20
|
15 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-20
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-07-06 |
2023-06-20
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Ballot has been issued |
2023-06-20
|
14 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2023-06-20
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-06-20
|
14 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2023-06-20
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-06-19
|
14 | Sarah Banks | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sarah Banks. Sent review to list. |
2023-06-19
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2023-06-16
|
14 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. Sent review to list. |
2023-06-16
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy |
2023-06-15
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to David Black was rejected |
2023-06-15
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Mohit Sethi |
2023-06-15
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to David Black |
2023-06-14
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-06-14
|
14 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete. In the SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors registry on the Segment Routing registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/ The existing early registration for: Value: 75 Hex: 0x004B Endpoint Behavior: End. Replicate will be made permanent. Its reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ] and the change controller will be changed to IETF. The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2023-06-12
|
14 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lou Berger |
2023-06-09
|
14 | Thomas Fossati | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Thomas Fossati. Sent review to list. |
2023-06-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Thomas Fossati |
2023-06-07
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-06-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mankamis@cisco.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-06-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mankamis@cisco.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (SR Replication segment for Multi-point Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG (spring) to consider the following document: - 'SR Replication segment for Multi-point Service Delivery' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the Segment Routing Replication segment for Multi-point service delivery. A Replication segment allows a packet to be replicated from a Replication node to Downstream nodes. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5016/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5612/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4909/ |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Last call was requested |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-06-05
|
14 | Jim Guichard | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-06-02
|
14 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2023-06-02
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2023-06-02
|
14 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14.txt |
2023-06-02
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-06-02
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-06-02
|
14 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-05-22
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dan Voyer, Clarence Filsfils, Rishabh Parekh, Hooman Bidgoli, Zhaohui Zhang, Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-22
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-05-22
|
13 | Jim Guichard | AD publication request review === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/XuqaOEtLsSPYISRwg9BWAtvE45Y/ === |
2023-05-22
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-22
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed |
2023-05-22
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Dan Voyer, Clarence Filsfils, Rishabh Parekh, Hooman Bidgoli, Zhaohui Zhang (IESG state changed) |
2023-05-22
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-05-22
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested |
2023-05-19
|
13 | Mankamana Mishra | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? WG had good amount of discussion and across vendors and operator people participated in discussion. With broad agreement this document was progressed . 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were no controversy , but some technical discussion around SRv6 area during WGLC which were resolved. 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.) None 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)? Section 4 of document talks about two implementation. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Since it is multicast related document, it was presented in PIM WG as well. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No Yang models 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. Yes, it was written in XML ## 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? Yes, document is written clearly and its complete and covers the complete design which would be useful for any one implementing this service. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? None 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Its Proposed Standard , and looks best intended publication since this defines protocol extension for P2MP service in SR network. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No nits 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References looks good. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? WG did have the review 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. None 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? None 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, it does not change status of any other RFC 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). Yea IANA section clearly documents the registries and names. 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. NA [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-04-19
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Notification list changed to mankamis@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-04-19
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Document shepherd changed to Mankamana Prasad Mishra |
2023-04-18
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed) |
2023-04-18
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2023-04-18
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-04-18
|
13 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment/ |
2023-04-18
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2023-04-18
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard |
2023-03-21
|
13 | Jim Guichard | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2023-03-21
|
13 | Jim Guichard | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2023-03-02
|
13 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-13.txt |
2023-03-02
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-02
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-03-02
|
13 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-27
|
12 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-12.txt |
2023-02-27
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-02-27
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-02-27
|
12 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-13
|
11 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-11.txt |
2023-01-13
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-01-13
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2023-01-13
|
11 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-14
|
10 | Ines Robles | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list. |
2022-11-03
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2022-11-03
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles |
2022-11-03
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Jonathan Hardwick was rejected |
2022-11-01
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
2022-11-01
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
2022-10-26
|
10 | Jim Guichard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2022-10-20
|
10 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-10.txt |
2022-10-20
|
10 | Rishabh Parekh | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh) |
2022-10-20
|
10 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-18
|
09 | Jim Guichard | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-09.txt |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Rishabh Parekh | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh) |
2022-10-06
|
09 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-01
|
08 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-08.txt |
2022-07-01
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-07-01
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2022-07-01
|
08 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-11
|
Tina Dang | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment | |
2022-03-07
|
07 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-07.txt |
2022-03-07
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-07
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2022-03-07
|
07 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-25
|
06 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-06.txt |
2021-10-25
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-25
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2021-10-25
|
06 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2021-08-20
|
05 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-05.txt |
2021-08-20
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-08-20
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2021-08-20
|
05 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-23
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment | |
2021-06-10
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection and draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment | |
2021-03-07
|
04 | Shuping Peng | Added to session: IETF-110: spring Thu-1300 |
2021-02-18
|
04 | Arvind Venkateswaran | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-04.txt |
2021-02-18
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-17
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang |
2021-02-17
|
04 | Arvind Venkateswaran | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-29
|
03 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-03.txt |
2020-10-29
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-29
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rishabh Parekh , Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui Zhang |
2020-10-29
|
03 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-29
|
02 | Dan Voyer | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-02.txt |
2020-10-29
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Voyer) |
2020-10-29
|
02 | Dan Voyer | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-28
|
01 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-01.txt |
2020-10-28
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-28
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang , Hooman Bidgoli |
2020-10-28
|
01 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-26
|
00 | Rishabh Parekh | This document now replaces draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment instead of None |
2020-07-26
|
00 | Rishabh Parekh | New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-00.txt |
2020-07-26
|
00 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh) |
2020-07-26
|
00 | Rishabh Parekh | Uploaded new revision |