Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Architecture
draft-ietf-teep-architecture-17
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-19
|
17 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2022-04-19
|
17 | Mingliang Pei | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-17.txt |
|
2022-04-19
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2022-04-19
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, David Wheeler <davewhee@amazon.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, David Wheeler <davewhee@amazon.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com> |
|
2022-04-19
|
17 | Mingliang Pei | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-04-07
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2022-04-04
|
16 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
|
2022-04-04
|
16 | Benjamin Schwartz | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Benjamin Schwartz. Sent review to list. |
|
2022-03-28
|
16 | Russ Housley | Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list. |
|
2022-03-28
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2022-03-28
|
16 | (System) | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Michelle Thangtamsatid IANA Services Specialist |
|
2022-03-25
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
|
2022-03-25
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
|
2022-03-23
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Changed action holders to Paul Wouters |
|
2022-03-23
|
16 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Paul Wouters |
|
2022-03-22
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
|
2022-03-22
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
|
2022-03-20
|
16 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2022-03-20
|
16 | Barry Leiba | Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2022-03-18
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Benjamin Schwartz |
|
2022-03-18
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Benjamin Schwartz |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-04-07):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-teep-architecture@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-04-07):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-teep-architecture@ietf.org, kaduk@mit.edu, kondtir@gmail.com, teep-chairs@ietf.org, teep@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16.txt> (Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Architecture) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning WG (teep) to consider the following document: - 'Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Architecture' <draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16.txt> as Informational RFC 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 2022-04-07. 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 A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by any code outside that environment. This architecture document motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-architecture/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Last call was requested |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2022-03-17
|
16 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2022-02-28
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-02-28
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2022-02-28
|
16 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-16.txt |
|
2022-02-28
|
16 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler) |
|
2022-02-28
|
16 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2022-01-07
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Hannes Tschofenig, Mingliang Pei, Benjamin Kaduk, Dave Wheeler (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-01-07
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2021-11-24
|
15 | (System) | Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-11-24
|
15 | Benjamin Kaduk | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2021-07-28
|
15 | Nancy Cam-Winget | Changed document external resources from: None to: github_repo https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by any code outside that environment. This architecture document motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE. Working Group Summary: The draft was adopted in July 2018 with good WG support for adoption. The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The co-authors of this document are from some of the leading vendors in offering TEE and with extensive experience with the related technologies and implementations, they are also the authors of the TEEP Protocol WG draft which guarantees consistency. Document Quality: The draft is mature enough after several revisions and there is strong consensus in the WG to pass the WGLC and go to next stage. Personnel: K Tirumaleswar Reddy (shepherd) Benjamin Kaduk (AD) (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed the document and found it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and presentations in IETF meetings. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I personally don't think that more reviews are needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. ** Mingliang Pei -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/qkfDsxfI9I8GOhhexf0ukaK6Cy0/ ** Hannes Tschofenig -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/_S-3-YLStjm7Sf0RSkUhxhOFkvc/ ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Ega8haQM5plqI6ycqz8K4jQ_LG4/ ** David Wheeler – No IPR (DaveW responded to the WG chairs and co-authors of the draft). (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reported no issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Normative references do not exist in this document. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No new IANA registries are defined by this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The draft has no IANA actions. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. The draft does not define any YANG module. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-07-20
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by any code outside that environment. This architecture document motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE. Working Group Summary: The draft was adopted in July 2018 with good WG support for adoption. The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The co-authors of this document are from some of the leading vendors in offering TEE and with extensive experience with the related technologies and implementations, they are also the authors of the TEEP Protocol WG draft which guarantees consistency. Document Quality: The draft is mature enough after several revisions and there is strong consensus in the WG to pass the WGLC and go to next stage. Personnel: K Tirumaleswar Reddy (shepherd) Benjamin Kaduk (AD) (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed the document and found it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and presentations in IETF meetings. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I personally don't think that more reviews are needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. ** Mingliang Pei -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/qkfDsxfI9I8GOhhexf0ukaK6Cy0/ ** Hannes Tschofenig -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/_S-3-YLStjm7Sf0RSkUhxhOFkvc/ ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Ega8haQM5plqI6ycqz8K4jQ_LG4/ ** David Wheeler – No IPR (DaveW responded to the WG chairs and co-authors of the draft). (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reported no issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Normative references do not exist in this document. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No new IANA registries are defined by this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The draft has no IANA actions. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. The draft does not define any YANG module. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. |
|
2021-07-19
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by any code outside that environment. This architecture document motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE. Working Group Summary: The draft was adopted in July 2018 with good WG support for adoption. The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The co-authors of this document are from some of the leading vendors in offering TEE and with extensive experience with the related technologies and implementations, they are also the authors of the TEEP Protocol WG draft which guarantees consistency. Document Quality: The draft is mature enough after several revisions and there is strong consensus in the WG to pass the WGLC and go to next stage. Personnel: K Tirumaleswar Reddy (shepherd) Benjamin Kaduk (AD) (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed the document and found it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and presentations in IETF meetings. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I personally don't think that more reviews are needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. ** Mingliang Pei -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/qkfDsxfI9I8GOhhexf0ukaK6Cy0/ ** Hannes Tschofenig -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/_S-3-YLStjm7Sf0RSkUhxhOFkvc/ ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Ega8haQM5plqI6ycqz8K4jQ_LG4/ ** David Wheeler – No response from him even after several reminder mails. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reported no issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Normative references do not exist in this document. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No new IANA registries are defined by this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The draft has no IANA actions. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. The draft does not define any YANG module. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. |
|
2021-07-19
|
15 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by any code outside that environment. This architecture document motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE. Working Group Summary: The draft was adopted in July 2018 with good WG support for adoption. The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The co-authors of this document are from some of the leading vendors in offering TEE and with extensive experience with the related technologies and implementations, they are also the authors of the TEEP Protocol WG draft which guarantees consistency. Document Quality: The draft is mature enough after several revisions and there is strong consensus in the WG to pass the WGLC and go to next stage. Personnel: K Tirumaleswar Reddy (shepherd) Benjamin Kaduk (AD) (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed the document and found it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and presentations in IETF meetings. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I personally don't think that more reviews are needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. ** Mingliang Pei -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/qkfDsxfI9I8GOhhexf0ukaK6Cy0/ ** Hannes Tschofenig -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/_S-3-YLStjm7Sf0RSkUhxhOFkvc/ ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Ega8haQM5plqI6ycqz8K4jQ_LG4/ ** David Wheeler – TODO (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reported no issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Normative references do not exist in this document. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No new IANA registries are defined by this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The draft has no IANA actions. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. The draft does not define any YANG module. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. |
|
2021-07-12
|
15 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-15.txt |
|
2021-07-12
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-07-12
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2021-07-12
|
15 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-07-05
|
14 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page header and in the datatracker. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: A Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) is an environment that enforces that any code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by any code outside that environment. This architecture document motivates the design and standardization of a protocol for managing the lifecycle of trusted applications running inside such a TEE. Working Group Summary: The draft was adopted in July 2018 with good WG support for adoption. The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The co-authors of this document are from some of the leading vendors in offering TEE and with extensive experience with the related technologies and implementations, they are also the authors of the TEEP Protocol WG draft which guarantees consistency. Document Quality: The draft is mature enough after several revisions and there is strong consensus in the WG to pass the WGLC and go to next stage. Personnel: K Tirumaleswar Reddy (shepherd) Benjamin Kaduk (AD) (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed the document and found it is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, the document was a subject of several reviews in the WG and presentations in IETF meetings. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I personally don't think that more reviews are needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors and contributors confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this draft. ** Mingliang Pei -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/qkfDsxfI9I8GOhhexf0ukaK6Cy0/ ** Hannes Tschofenig -- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/_S-3-YLStjm7Sf0RSkUhxhOFkvc/ ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/Ega8haQM5plqI6ycqz8K4jQ_LG4/ ** David Wheeler – TODO (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed that reference this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus is solid. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise 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. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. IDnits reported no issues other than the Miscellaneous warning listed below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? Normative references do not exist in this document. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No, publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) 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 protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No new IANA registries are defined by this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The draft has no IANA actions. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. The draft does not define any YANG module. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-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 RFC8342? The draft contains no YANG or XML modules to validate. |
|
2021-04-13
|
14 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2021-04-13
|
14 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2021-04-13
|
14 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | Notification list changed to kondtir@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2021-04-13
|
14 | Tirumaleswar Reddy.K | Document shepherd changed to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K |
|
2021-02-22
|
14 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-14.txt |
|
2021-02-22
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-02-22
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com> |
|
2021-02-22
|
14 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-02
|
13 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-13.txt |
|
2020-11-02
|
13 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler) |
|
2020-11-02
|
13 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-13
|
12 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-12.txt |
|
2020-07-13
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-13
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Dave Thaler … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> |
|
2020-07-13
|
12 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-02
|
11 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-11.txt |
|
2020-07-02
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-02
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <mingliang.pei@broadcom.com> |
|
2020-07-02
|
11 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-06-19
|
10 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-10.txt |
|
2020-06-19
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-06-19
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com> |
|
2020-06-19
|
10 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-06-12
|
09 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-09.txt |
|
2020-06-12
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler) |
|
2020-06-12
|
09 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-04-04
|
08 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-08.txt |
|
2020-04-04
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-04-04
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, David Wheeler … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2020-04-04
|
08 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-03-07
|
07 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-07.txt |
|
2020-03-07
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-03-07
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com> |
|
2020-03-07
|
07 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-02-08
|
06 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-06.txt |
|
2020-02-08
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-02-08
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Mingliang Pei … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2020-02-08
|
06 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-12
|
05 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-05.txt |
|
2019-12-12
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-12-12
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Andrew Atyeo <andrew.atyeo@intercede.com> |
|
2019-12-12
|
05 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-06
|
04 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-04.txt |
|
2019-12-06
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-12-06
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Andrew Atyeo <andrew.atyeo@intercede.com> |
|
2019-12-06
|
04 | Dave Thaler | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-07
|
03 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: IETF-106: teep Tue-1000 |
|
2019-07-21
|
03 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: IETF-105: teep Tue-1000 |
|
2019-07-12
|
03 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: IETF-105: teep Mon-1000 |
|
2019-07-08
|
03 | Mingliang Pei | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-03.txt |
|
2019-07-08
|
03 | (System) | Forced post of submission |
|
2019-07-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Andrew Atyeo <andrew.atyeo@intercede.com> |
|
2019-07-08
|
03 | Mingliang Pei | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-03-11
|
02 | Mingliang Pei | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-02.txt |
|
2019-03-11
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-03-11
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, David Wheeler <david.m.wheeler@intel.com>, Andrew Atyeo <andrew.atyeo@intercede.com> |
|
2019-03-11
|
02 | Mingliang Pei | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-03-04
|
01 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: IETF-104: teep Tue-0900 |
|
2018-11-04
|
01 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: IETF-103: teep Wed-0900 |
|
2018-10-22
|
01 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-01.txt |
|
2018-10-22
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-10-22
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dapeng Liu <maxpassion@gmail.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@arm.com>, teep-chairs@ietf.org, Mingliang Pei <Mingliang_Pei@symantec.com>, Andrew Atyeo <andrew.atyeo@intercede.com> |
|
2018-10-22
|
01 | Hannes Tschofenig | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-10-22
|
00 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: interim-2018-teep-01 |
|
2018-07-16
|
00 | Dave Thaler | Added to session: IETF-102: teep Tue-1330 |
|
2018-07-04
|
00 | Mingliang Pei | New version available: draft-ietf-teep-architecture-00.txt |
|
2018-07-04
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2018-07-04
|
00 | Mingliang Pei | Set submitter to "Mingliang Pei <mingliang_pei@symantec.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: teep-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2018-07-02
|
00 | Mingliang Pei | Uploaded new revision |