Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) MIB
draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-02-25
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-02-10
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-01-29
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2016-01-22
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2015-12-31
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2015-10-21
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-10-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2015-10-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2015-10-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-10-20
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-10-19
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-10-19
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-10-19
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-15
|
11 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-10-14
|
11 | (System) | Notify list changed from d3e3e3@gmail.com, trill-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-12
|
11 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-11.txt |
2015-10-07
|
10 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-10.txt |
2015-09-29
|
09 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-09.txt |
2015-08-25
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares. |
2015-08-25
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2015-08-25
|
08 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2015-08-23
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Melinda Shore. |
2015-08-23
|
08 | Deepak Kumar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-08-23
|
08 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-08.txt |
2015-08-20
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Melinda Shore did the opsdir review. would like to see the question of the security considerations setion addressed. ---- I have reviewed this … [Ballot comment] Melinda Shore did the opsdir review. would like to see the question of the security considerations setion addressed. ---- I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: The document is in good basic shape, with some weaknesses in the security considerations. I'd like to see those remedied but I'm not sure they're serious enough to recommend blocking publication. This document specifies a MIB for TRILL. This document has been received MIB doctor review and issues raised during that review have been been resolved. The security considerations section is weak, but not fatally so. The draft identifies exposing MAC addresses as a potential privacy issue but does not identify other security considerations specific to this particular MIB module, which is unfortunate given the inclusion of writable objects. More specificity about which security mechanisms to use might help avoid interoperability problems. Also, in this climate it may be useful to separate out the privacy issues into a "Privacy Considerations" subsection. The nits checker found: . two instances of non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses . a missing reference to CFM. This one is wrong - CFM is identified and a reference provided in the Introduction (section 1) Melinda |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Weird that this document uses the old template, with Status of this Memo as the first section. I would suggest doing a pass … [Ballot comment] Weird that this document uses the old template, with Status of this Memo as the first section. I would suggest doing a pass of this whole document to clean up the English before it goes to the RFC Editor, as there are enough places where the grammar is ambiguous that it would be better not to have the RFC Editor try to interpret them all. Some examples of issues that seem to occur throughout the document: Missing articles (e.g. Sec 5.3, "trilloamNotifications are sent to management entity") Inconsistent capitalization (e.g. in the definition of trillOamMepTxLbmReplyModeOob, "True Indicates that Reply of Lbm") Subject-verb agreement problems (e.g., in the definition of trillOamMepTxMtvmMessages, "Rbridge retransmit the Multi Destination message") Ambiguous text (e.g., in the definition of trillOamMepTxPtmMessages, "Once Destination or Hop count reaches it's treated as single Counter increment of this object") |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Grepping for "MAX-ACCESS *read-create" gives me 28 hits. The security considerations section describes 5 of those that I can see. Are you … [Ballot comment] - Grepping for "MAX-ACCESS *read-create" gives me 28 hits. The security considerations section describes 5 of those that I can see. Are you saying that you did check but all of the others are read-create are not in fact sensitive? - The security considerations here might note two additional things. First, access to the read-only date exposes the network topology so might be considered more sensitive than other MIBs. And second, if one can set an IP address to which reports are sent say in the event of some kind of packet storm, then that could maybe be used to DoS that IP address. I'm not sure either is worth a mention, but just wanted to check in case they might be. |
2015-08-19
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Deepak Kumar | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-08-18
|
07 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-07.txt |
2015-08-18
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-08-18
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-08-18
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the updated Security Considerations in the SecDir review, that update will address my concerns. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05934.html |
2015-08-18
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-08-17
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] A few nits: -- section 3: s/is intended to provide/provides ; (Unless you are concerned that it did not succeed? Please expand OAM … [Ballot comment] A few nits: -- section 3: s/is intended to provide/provides ; (Unless you are concerned that it did not succeed? Please expand OAM on first mention. -- 5.3.1: s/fault alarm/fault alarms -- 6 (title) s/module/modules -- 6, first paragraph, "relevant to TRILL OAM MIB" missing article -- 6.1, first paragraph: Is there a reason to capitalize "Augments" and "Augmenting"? --6.1, 2nd paragraph: I have trouble parsing this paragraph. Do you mean some implementations do not support Link Trace Messages? All implementations? The TRILL standard? I suggest the latter part of the sentence be “statistics for these messages should have default values as per…" |
2015-08-17
|
06 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-08-17
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-08-17
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-08-14
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-08-13
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yoav Nir. |
2015-08-13
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-08-06
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2015-08-06
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore |
2015-08-06
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to David Black was rejected |
2015-08-06
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2015-08-06
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2015-08-04
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-08-04
|
06 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments: IANA understands … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB sub-registry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers a new mib-2 number will be registered as follows: Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ] Name: trillOamMIB Description: TRILL-OAM-MIB References: [ RFC-to-be ] Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-08-03
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-08-03
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black |
2015-08-03
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (TRILL OAM MIB) to Proposed … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (TRILL OAM MIB) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document: - 'TRILL OAM MIB' 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 ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-08-13. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies the Management Information Base (MIB) for the IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM objects. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot has been issued |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-20 |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Last call was requested |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-07-30
|
06 | Alia Atlas | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Expert Review |
2015-07-19
|
06 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06.txt |
2015-06-30
|
05 | Donald Eastlake | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard as indicsted … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard as indicsted on the title page. (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 Management Information Base (MIB) for the IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM objects. Working Group Summary: WG process on this draft was unremarkable. Given the people are mostly not that interested in MIBs, there was good support for adoption, at least one thorough technical review, but no comments during WG LC. Document Quality: The document has been reviewed multiple times and is of good quality. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd Responsible Area Director: Alia Atlas (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The Shepherd read the document and the resulting review comments which have been resolved in the draft were posted here http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06518.html. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Now that this document has had MIB Doctor review, I do not believe further formal review is required.. (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? It has received the required MIB Doctor review and the MIB Doctor's comments have been resolved. (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. This is an important document. No specific concerns other than that directorate review is needed as indicated above. (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? Yes. (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 disclosures. (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? There was good support for the adoption of this document. Not that many people are interested in MIBs so it is not surprising that there were no last call comments other than the Shepherd's. (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. 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. Nits found earlier by the Shepherd have been fixed. The only remaining things found by the nits checker are an apparent reference that is actually inside the MIB. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. MIB Doctor review has been done and all comments resolved. (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 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? No. (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. The only IANA action is the allocation of an OID for the TRILL OAM MIB. (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. No new registries are created. (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, etc. The Shephard did not complete any automated validations. |
2015-06-30
|
05 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-05.txt |
2015-06-26
|
04 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-04.txt |
2015-04-04
|
03 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-03.txt |
2015-03-25
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas |
2015-01-23
|
02 | Ted Lemon | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
2015-01-05
|
02 | Susan Hares | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard as indicsted … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard as indicsted on the title page. (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 Management Information Base (MIB) for the IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM objects. Working Group Summary: WG process on this draft was unremarkable. Given the people are mostly not that interested in MIBs, there was good support for adoption, at least one thorough technical review, but no comments during WG LC. Document Quality: The document is of good quality. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake, 3rd Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The Shepherd read the document and the resulting review comments which have been resolved in the draft were posted here http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06518.html. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document still needs MIB Doctor and perhaps OPS Directorate review. (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? Needs MIB Doctor and perhaps OPS Directorate review. (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. This is an important document. No specific concerns other than that directorate review is needed as indicated above. (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? Yes. (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 disclosures. (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? There was good support for the adoption of this document. Not that many people are interested in MIBs so it is not that surprising that there were no last call comments other than the Shepherd's. (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. 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. Nits found earlier by the Shepherd have been fixed. The only remaining things found by the nits checker are an apparent reference that is actually inside the MIB code and one very trivial typo, a random double space on page 9, that does not seem worth spinning a new version to fix. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. MIB Doctor review still required. (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? There is a reference to draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm ([TRILL-FM]) which is in the RFC Editor's queue. (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? No. (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. The only IANA action is the allocation of an OID for the TRILL OAM MIB. (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. No new registries are created. (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, etc. The Shephard did not complete any automatic validations. |
2015-01-05
|
02 | Susan Hares | State Change Notice email list changed to d3e3e3@gmail.com, draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, trill-chairs@tools.ietf.org, trill@ietf.org |
2015-01-05
|
02 | Susan Hares | Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon |
2015-01-05
|
02 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-01-05
|
02 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-01-05
|
02 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-12-22
|
02 | Donald Eastlake | Changed document writeup |
2014-12-22
|
02 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-12-18
|
02 | Donald Eastlake | Changed document writeup |
2014-12-12
|
02 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-02.txt |
2014-11-23
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-11-23
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-09-08
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd |
2014-07-26
|
01 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-01.txt |
2014-01-28
|
00 | Donald Eastlake | This document now replaces draft-deepak-trill-oam-mib instead of None |
2014-01-15
|
00 | Deepak Kumar | New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-00.txt |