Skip to main content

HTTP Transport for Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning: Agent Initiated Communication
draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-04-07
13 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-03-31
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2022-03-31
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica
2022-03-31
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2022-03-31
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2022-03-28
13 Russ Housley Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list.
2022-03-28
13 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-03-28
13 (System)
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13, 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-otrp-over-http-13, 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
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2022-03-25
13 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley
2022-03-24
13 Dan Romascanu Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Dan Romascanu was rejected
2022-03-23
13 Amy Vezza Changed action holders to Paul Wouters
2022-03-23
13 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Paul Wouters
2022-03-22
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2022-03-22
13 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2022-03-20
13 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Carsten Bormann
2022-03-20
13 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Carsten Bormann
2022-03-18
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2022-03-18
13 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stefan Santesson
2022-03-17
13 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-03-17
13 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-otrp-over-http@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-otrp-over-http@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-otrp-over-http-13.txt> (HTTP Transport for Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning: Agent Initiated Communication) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Trusted Execution Environment
Provisioning WG (teep) to consider the following document: - 'HTTP Transport
for Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning: Agent
  Initiated Communication'
  <draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13.txt> 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 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


  The Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Protocol is
  used to manage code and configuration data in a Trusted Execution
  Environment (TEE).  This document specifies the HTTP transport for
  TEEP communication where a Trusted Application Manager (TAM) service
  is used to manage code and data in TEEs on devices that can initiate
  communication to the TAM.  An implementation of this document can (if
  desired) run outside of any TEE, but interacts with a TEEP
  implementation that runs inside a TEE.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2022-03-17
13 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-03-17
13 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2022-03-17
13 Benjamin Kaduk Last call was requested
2022-03-17
13 Benjamin Kaduk Last call announcement was generated
2022-03-17
13 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot approval text was generated
2022-03-17
13 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot writeup was generated
2022-03-17
13 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-02-28
13 (System) Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed)
2022-02-28
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-02-28
13 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-13.txt
2022-02-28
13 (System) New version approved
2022-02-28
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2022-02-28
13 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2022-01-07
12 (System) Changed action holders to Dave Thaler, Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed)
2022-01-07
12 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-11-24
12 (System) Changed action holders to Benjamin Kaduk (IESG state changed)
2021-11-24
12 Benjamin Kaduk IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-07-28
12 Nancy Cam-Winget Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/ietf-teep/otrp-over-http
2021-07-26
12 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?

Proposed Standard 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:

  This document specifies the HTTP transport for
  TEEP communication where a Trusted Application Manager (TAM) service
  is used to manage code and data in TEEs on devices that can initiate
  communication to the TAM. The TEEP-over-HTTP implementation can be implemented
  either outside a TEE (i.e., in a TEEP "Broker") or inside a TEE.


Working Group Summary:

The draft was adopted in Jan 2020 with good WG support for adoption.  The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The author of this document has extensive experience with the TEE technologies and implementations, he is also the co-author of the TEEP Protocol WG draft.

Further, there has been active participation in IETF hackathon activities from WG members to implement and test TEEP protocol with HTTP transport.

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.

Mark Nottingham did multiple reviews on behalf of the httpbis WG, especially for conformance to bcp56bis, at the request of the WG.

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.

  ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/yZJzKpxkJmsnw2zjpgD9sZlN2lI/

(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?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.
2021-07-26
12 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Responsible AD changed to Benjamin Kaduk
2021-07-26
12 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-07-26
12 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-07-26
12 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-07-26
12 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?

Proposed Standard 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:

  This document specifies the HTTP transport for
  TEEP communication where a Trusted Application Manager (TAM) service
  is used to manage code and data in TEEs on devices that can initiate
  communication to the TAM. The TEEP-over-HTTP implementation can be implemented
  either outside a TEE (i.e., in a TEEP "Broker") or inside a TEE.


Working Group Summary:

The draft was adopted in Jan 2020 with good WG support for adoption.  The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The author of this document has extensive experience with the TEE technologies and implementations, he is also the co-author of the TEEP Protocol WG draft.

Further, there has been active participation in IETF hackathon activities from WG members to implement and test TEEP protocol with HTTP transport.

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.

Mark Nottingham did multiple reviews on behalf of the httpbis WG, especially for conformance to bcp56bis, at the request of the WG.

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.

  ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/yZJzKpxkJmsnw2zjpgD9sZlN2lI/

(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?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative 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.
2021-07-26
12 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-12.txt
2021-07-26
12 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler)
2021-07-26
12 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2021-07-24
11 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?

Proposed Standard 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:

  This document specifies the HTTP transport for
  TEEP communication where a Trusted Application Manager (TAM) service
  is used to manage code and data in TEEs on devices that can initiate
  communication to the TAM. The TEEP-over-HTTP implementation can be implemented
  either outside a TEE (i.e., in a TEEP "Broker") or inside a TEE.


Working Group Summary:

The draft was adopted in Jan 2020 with good WG support for adoption.  The draft has been widely discussed and reviewed. The author of this document has extensive experience with the TEE technologies and implementations, he is also the co-author of the TEEP Protocol WG draft.

Futher, active participation in IETF hackathon activities from WG members to implement and test TEEP protocol with HTTP transport.

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.

  ** Dave Thaler – https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teep/yZJzKpxkJmsnw2zjpgD9sZlN2lI/

(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?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative 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
11 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-07-20
11 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2021-07-12
11 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-11.txt
2021-07-12
11 (System) New version approved
2021-07-12
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2021-07-12
11 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2021-07-12
10 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Notification list changed to kondtir@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2021-07-12
10 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K Document shepherd changed to Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
2021-07-12
10 Tirumaleswar Reddy.K IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2021-02-22
10 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-10.txt
2021-02-22
10 (System) New version approved
2021-02-22
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2021-02-22
10 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2020-11-02
09 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-09.txt
2020-11-02
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler)
2020-11-02
09 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2020-10-09
08 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-08.txt
2020-10-09
08 (System) New version approved
2020-10-09
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2020-10-09
08 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2020-07-25
07 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-07.txt
2020-07-25
07 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler)
2020-07-25
07 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2020-04-04
06 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-06.txt
2020-04-04
06 (System) New version approved
2020-04-04
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2020-04-04
06 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2020-03-31
05 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-05.txt
2020-03-31
05 (System) New version approved
2020-03-31
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2020-03-31
05 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2020-02-10
04 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-04.txt
2020-02-10
04 (System) New version approved
2020-02-10
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2020-02-10
04 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2019-11-07
03 Dave Thaler Added to session: IETF-106: teep  Wed-1000
2019-11-04
03 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-03.txt
2019-11-04
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Dave Thaler)
2019-11-04
03 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2019-10-22
02 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-02.txt
2019-10-22
02 (System) New version approved
2019-10-22
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2019-10-22
02 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2019-07-12
01 Dave Thaler Added to session: IETF-105: teep  Mon-1000
2019-07-08
01 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-01.txt
2019-07-08
01 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
2019-07-08
01 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision
2019-06-25
00 Benjamin Kaduk This document now replaces draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http instead of None
2019-06-21
00 Nancy Cam-Winget This replaces draft-thaler-teep-otrp-over-http
2019-06-21
00 Dave Thaler New version available: draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-00.txt
2019-06-21
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2019-06-21
00 Dave Thaler Set submitter to "David Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: teep-chairs@ietf.org
2019-06-21
00 Dave Thaler Uploaded new revision