Interworking of GMPLS Control and Centralized Controller Systems
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | # 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? “Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable characterization. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was particularly rough. 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 one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent. 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)? This document does not propose any protocol extensions. It is an informational document that describes how the GMPLS distributed control plane can interwork with a centralized controller system in a transport network. The document does not include any implementation report. This document is driven by multiple vendors/operators and is expected to be implemented in some form. ## 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. The topic covered in this document has some relevance to the technologies being discussed in some other WGs (CCAMP, PCE and LSR). However, there isn't enough in-depth detail on any of these relevant technologies to warrant a review from these other WGs. 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. The document has been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/VvfBq2IZh9uNp5gK0dUAIN-B_Is/ 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]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 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. There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc. ## 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, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director. 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? It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all the issues specified in [6]. 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? The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate because this document provide a general description of how the GMPLS distributed control plane can interwork with a centralized controller system in a transport network. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent. 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. The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process was duly applied to the document. There are no IPR disclosures associated with this document. Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2022-12-02 and 2022-12-23 at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work/history/ Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2019-05-27 at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zheng-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work/history/ 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. The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page and 2 other contributors listed later in the document. 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.) There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. All listed informative and normative references are appropriate. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All listed normative references are freely available. 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. There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references are published RFCs. 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? All listed normative references are published RFCs. 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. The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. 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]). This draft makes no requests for IANA action. 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. This draft makes no requests for IANA action. [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/ |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-03-13
|
13 | (System) | Changed action holders to John Scudder (IESG state changed) |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | Responsible AD changed to John Scudder |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared. |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2024-03-13
|
13 | Vishnu Beeram | # 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? “Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable characterization. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was particularly rough. 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 one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent. 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)? This document does not propose any protocol extensions. It is an informational document that describes how the GMPLS distributed control plane can interwork with a centralized controller system in a transport network. The document does not include any implementation report. This document is driven by multiple vendors/operators and is expected to be implemented in some form. ## 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. The topic covered in this document has some relevance to the technologies being discussed in some other WGs (CCAMP, PCE and LSR). However, there isn't enough in-depth detail on any of these relevant technologies to warrant a review from these other WGs. 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. The document has been reviewed by the Routing Directorate. Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/VvfBq2IZh9uNp5gK0dUAIN-B_Is/ 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]? The document does not contain a YANG module. 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. There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc. ## 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, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, reasonably well written, complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director. 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? It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all the issues specified in [6]. 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? The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate because this document provide a general description of how the GMPLS distributed control plane can interwork with a centralized controller system in a transport network. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent. 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. The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process was duly applied to the document. There are no IPR disclosures associated with this document. Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entries dated 2022-12-02 and 2022-12-23 at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work/history/ Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2019-05-27 at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zheng-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work/history/ 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. The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 5 authors listed on the front page and 2 other contributors listed later in the document. 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.) There are no I-D nits that are yet to be resolved. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. All listed informative and normative references are appropriate. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All listed normative references are freely available. 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. There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references are published RFCs. 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? All listed normative references are published RFCs. 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. The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. 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]). This draft makes no requests for IANA action. 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. This draft makes no requests for IANA action. [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/ |
2024-02-08
|
13 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-13.txt |
2024-02-08
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-02-08
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2024-02-08
|
13 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-26
|
12 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-07-25
|
12 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-12.txt |
2023-07-25
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-25
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2023-07-25
|
12 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-24
|
11 | Vishnu Beeram | Routing-Directorate review comments unaddressed |
2023-07-24
|
11 | Vishnu Beeram | Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2023-07-24
|
11 | Vishnu Beeram | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2023-07-03
|
11 | He Jia | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: He Jia. Sent review to list. |
2023-06-16
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia |
2023-06-16
|
11 | Haomian Zheng | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Emmanuel Baccelli was rejected |
2023-04-07
|
11 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-11.txt |
2023-04-07
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-04-07
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu , teas-chairs@ietf.org |
2023-04-07
|
11 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-29
|
10 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Emmanuel Baccelli |
2023-03-29
|
10 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to lberger@labn.net, vbeeram@juniper.net from lberger@labn.net because the document shepherd was set |
2023-03-29
|
10 | Lou Berger | Document shepherd changed to Vishnu Pavan Beeram |
2023-03-29
|
10 | Vishnu Beeram | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-03-12
|
10 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-10.txt |
2023-03-12
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-12
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2023-03-12
|
10 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-23
|
09 | Vishnu Beeram | Pre WGLC IPR Poll Responses: zhaoyangyjy@chinamobile.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/hpkRycNiKtJHMak-u9t70qdwbAE/ Note: Received all required responses. |
2022-12-02
|
09 | Vishnu Beeram | Pre-WG LC IPR Responses: "Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)" https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/cQBg0pSnZaOZbSV7Wf0DKYl-eco/ luoxianlong@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kWhF6hyXPdmyf0QYQdMG4dCoeG0/ xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HOG5MwIeImR4jsWym-gu5uz6DFU/ "Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)" https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FvB1ggvrP1LCZ03An4t-X8Q637Y/ "Beller, Dieter (Nokia - … Pre-WG LC IPR Responses: "Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)" https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/cQBg0pSnZaOZbSV7Wf0DKYl-eco/ luoxianlong@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kWhF6hyXPdmyf0QYQdMG4dCoeG0/ xuyunbin@caict.ac.cn https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/HOG5MwIeImR4jsWym-gu5uz6DFU/ "Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)" https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FvB1ggvrP1LCZ03An4t-X8Q637Y/ "Beller, Dieter (Nokia - DE)" https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/eeZiOorc4JYpHgcivUOUGD17GpU/ yi.lin@huawei.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/k5IGEXXX_1yo_4-1z3p2wBH949s/ Missing Response: zhaoyangyjy@chinamobile.com |
2022-11-07
|
09 | Lou Berger | IETF 115 - Preping for WG LC - IPR Poll: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/fdjB-j44uHDOaeHA-innIUIMbAg/ |
2022-09-17
|
09 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-09.txt |
2022-09-17
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-09-17
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2022-09-17
|
09 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-16
|
08 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to lberger@labn.net because the document shepherd was set |
2022-09-16
|
08 | Lou Berger | Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger |
2022-09-16
|
08 | Lou Berger | revised id needed - expired. Will poll authors if ready for WG LC. |
2022-09-16
|
08 | Lou Berger | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
2022-09-08
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-07
|
08 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-08.txt |
2022-03-07
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-07
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2022-03-07
|
08 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-12
|
07 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-07.txt |
2022-01-12
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-01-12
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2022-01-12
|
07 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-12
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-11
|
06 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-06.txt |
2021-07-11
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-11
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2021-07-11
|
06 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2021-03-07
|
05 | Lou Berger | Added to session: IETF-110: teas Tue-1700 |
2021-02-21
|
05 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-05.txt |
2021-02-21
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-21
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dieter Beller , Haomian Zheng , Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu |
2021-02-21
|
05 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-18
|
04 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-04.txt |
2020-09-18
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-18
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yunbin Xu , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Haomian Zheng , Dieter Beller … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Yunbin Xu , Xianlong Luo , Yang Zhao , Yi Lin , Haomian Zheng , Dieter Beller , Sergio Belotti |
2020-09-18
|
04 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-10
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-03-09
|
03 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-03.txt |
2020-03-09
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu , Yang Zhao , Haomian Zheng … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sergio Belotti , Xianlong Luo , Yi Lin , Yunbin Xu , Yang Zhao , Haomian Zheng , Dieter Beller |
2020-03-09
|
03 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-04
|
02 | Yi Lin | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-02.txt |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-04
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Yunbin Xu , Xianlong Luo , Sergio Belotti , Dieter Beller , … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , teas-chairs@ietf.org, Yunbin Xu , Xianlong Luo , Sergio Belotti , Dieter Beller , Yang Zhao |
2019-11-04
|
02 | Yi Lin | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-08
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-01.txt |
2019-07-08
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-08
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Haomian Zheng , Yunbin Xu , Xianlong Luo , Sergio Belotti , Dieter Beller , Yang Zhao |
2019-07-08
|
01 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-12
|
00 | Vishnu Beeram | This document now replaces draft-zheng-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work instead of None |
2019-06-12
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | New version available: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-00.txt |
2019-06-12
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-06-12
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | Set submitter to "Haomian Zheng ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: teas-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-06-12
|
00 | Haomian Zheng | Uploaded new revision |