Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP)
draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2023-05-14
|
13 | Qin Wu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Qin Wu. Sent review to list. |
2023-05-02
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2023-03-09
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-03-09
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Hannes Tschofenig was marked no-response |
2023-03-09
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Russ Housley Last Call GENART review |
2023-03-09
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2023-03-06
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2023-03-06
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2023-03-06
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2023-03-06
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2023-03-03
|
13 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2023-03-03
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-03-03
|
13 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2023-03-03
|
13 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2023-03-03
|
13 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-03-03
|
13 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13.txt |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2023-03-03
|
13 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-02
|
12 | (System) | Changed action holders to Gorry Fairhurst, Raffaello Secchi, Ana Custura (IESG state changed) |
2023-03-02
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2023-03-02
|
12 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2023-03-02
|
12 | Andrew Alston | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston |
2023-03-01
|
12 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] # John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12 CC @jgscudder ## COMMENTS Thanks for this interesting document, I enjoyed reading it. I have … [Ballot comment] # John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12 CC @jgscudder ## COMMENTS Thanks for this interesting document, I enjoyed reading it. I have a number of comments that I hope will be helpful; I'm somewhat concerned they may come off as nitpicking but in some of the cases I really did find that (for example) lack of a comma seriously impeded my ability to understand the material. ### Section 1, Expand "BA" Please expand "BA" on first use, presumably you'd do this by putting "(BA)" next to your first and only use of "Behavior Aggregates". ### Section 2, The term 'remarking' You might mention in your Terminology section that you use the term "remarking" in a nonstandard (with respect to the normal rules of English orthography) way, pronounced and construed as "re-marking". Then again, maybe the entire document set around DSCP already has this quirk so the ship has sailed? Your call, but you do say in Section 6 that your intended audience is the entire IETF and IESG, so it might be worth erring on the side of generosity here. ### Section 3.1, Unclear clause The parenthetical where 'x' refers to either a bit position with value '0' or '1' Is unclear, probably what you mean is where 'x' refers to a bit position with value either '0' or '1' ### Section 3.1, Pool 3 I found the discussion of 0x01, 0x03, 0x05, 0x07 under the heading of Pool 3 to be confusing, considering that we are told Pool 3 has format 0bxxx01, and so 0x03 and 0x07 are by definition not part of it. Would it make sense to end the description of Pool 3 right after "... if Pool 1 is ever exhausted" and make the remaining text a standalone paragraph and not part of the Pool 1/2/3 hanging list? ### Section 3.2, For want of a comma, the point was lost I wasn't able to unambiguously construe ``` Similarly, another study found many routers remark all traffic except those packets with a DSCP that sets the higher order bits to 0b11 (see Section 4 of this document). ``` until I finally found the answer in the final paragraph of Section 4.2.1. So, at the very least you might update your reference to point the bamboozled reader specifically to that paragraph or at least subsection. I would also suggest at minimum adding a comma between "traffic" and "except", but really why not just rewrite it in a way that's a bit more direct? ### Section 4.2.1, Gnomic entries in Table showing 0b000xxx DSCPs I was expecting that some later text would help me understand what "ToS Prec B1. of AF11..41", "EXP/LU", "ToS Prec B1 of AF13..EF" and "Exp/LU" mean, but none ever came. I surmise that the "ToS Prec" business means "these are assigned things that ToS-bleach down to the same thing", but really the work to figure that out was greater than the work to just read the preceding "Table of DSCP values" and come to the conclusion myself. And neither "EXP/LU" nor "Exp/LU" (why the different capitalizations?) are ever explained. It seems to me that this table is too pithy to be of use to the casual reader such as myself, and likely too obvious to be of use to the expert reader. ### Section 4.2.1, Is LE 1, or 4? You write "The Lower-Effort Per-Hop Behavior PHB (LE) uses a DSCP of 4". But elsewhere (the "Table of DSCP values", other tables, Section 6.2.1) you tell me LE is DSCP 1. ### Section 5.1.1 Including? Included? "IEEE 802.1Q specified a 3-bit Priority Code Point (PCP) field including in a tag that allows Ethernet frames to be marked as one of eight priority values [IEEE-802-1Q]." I don't know from 802.1Q, so I can't work out if there's a comma missing before "including", or if "including" should be "included". (Or something else I haven't contemplated.) ## NITS "as well unassigned DSCPs" -> "as well as unassigned DSCPs" (insert 'as') ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments |
2023-03-01
|
12 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2023-03-01
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2023-03-01
|
12 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] I have followed this document in WG and appreciate this effort. Thanks for working on this specification. |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Missing references No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned … [Ballot comment] # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12 CC @larseggert ## Comments ### Missing references No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text: `[RFC5415]`. ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Outdated references Reference `[RFC1349]` to `RFC1349`, which was obsoleted by `RFC2474` (this may be on purpose). Reference `[RFC3662]` to `RFC3662`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8622` (this may be on purpose). ### Grammar/style #### Section 4, paragraph 2 ``` e DSCP field to any value different than 0b000 (replace the 3 bits of the fo ^^^^ ``` Did you mean "different from"? "Different than" is often considered colloquial style. [DIFFERENT_THAN] (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 4.2.2, paragraph 5 ``` stems and subnetworks can, and do, utilise the DiffServ field in an IP packet ^^^^^^^ ``` Do not mix variants of the same word ("utilise" and "utilize") within a single text. [EN_WORD_COHERENCY] (Also elsewhere.) #### Section 4.3, paragraph 2 ``` E Ethernet 802.1Q header, the 3-bit WiFi UP field or the 3-bit Traffic Class ^^^^ ``` Did you mean "Wi-Fi"? (This is the officially approved term by the Wi-Fi Alliance.). [WIFI] (Also elsewhere.) ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thanks to the authors for an easy and very interesting read. It would be nice to provide an open access to Cus17 or … [Ballot comment] Thanks to the authors for an easy and very interesting read. It would be nice to provide an open access to Cus17 or at least a summary of the analysed behaviours. Thanks also to David Blake for the shepherd's write-up. I have just some questions: - do the authors have any idea about why 'IPv6 routers were found to perform all the types of remarking described above to a lesser extent than IPv4 ones' ? Could it simply be because they are more recent or better managed than legacy ones ? - was this I-D reviewed by MPLS WG and by the 3GPP liaison ? Minor comments: - it would have been nice to also describe the MEF documents - the IETF113-IEPG reference is actually for IETF-115 ;-) Regards -éric |
2023-02-28
|
12 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12 CC @ekline ## Nits ### S5.1.2 * "(wireless-to-wired interconnections," -> "(wireless-to-wired interconnections)," ### S6.4 * The … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12 CC @ekline ## Nits ### S5.1.2 * "(wireless-to-wired interconnections," -> "(wireless-to-wired interconnections)," ### S6.4 * The term "re-mark" is use here, whereas it seems like "remark" (no hyphen) is used throughout the rest of the document. (Personally, I prefer "re-mark", to distinguish it from the regular English word having to do with observing or commenting, but that's just me.) ### S6.5 * In the 4th bullet, I assume "ID" here is actually "I-D" as in "Internet draft"? |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Martin Duke | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-03-02 |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Martin Duke | Ballot has been issued |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Martin Duke | Created "Approve" ballot |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2023-02-26
|
12 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was changed |
2023-02-24
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2023-02-20
|
12 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig |
2023-02-17
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2023-02-17
|
12 | David Dong | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12, 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. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Specialist |
2023-02-17
|
12 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2023-02-16
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2023-02-13
|
12 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12.txt |
2023-02-13
|
12 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2023-02-13
|
12 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-02-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: david.black@dell.com, draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-02-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: david.black@dell.com, draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations@ietf.org, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG (tsvwg) to consider the following document: - 'Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP)' 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 2023-02-24. 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 discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) for a new standard Per Hop Behavior (PHB). It considers the common observed remarking behaviors that the DiffServ field might be subjected to along an Internet path. It also notes some implications of using a specific DSCP. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Martin Duke | Last call was requested |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Martin Duke | Last call announcement was generated |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Martin Duke | Ballot approval text was generated |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Martin Duke | Ballot writeup was generated |
2023-02-10
|
11 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2023-02-10
|
11 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2023-02-10
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-11.txt |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2023-02-10
|
11 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-09
|
10 | Martin Duke | Changed action holders to Gorry Fairhurst, Raffaello Secchi, Ana Custura |
2023-02-09
|
10 | (System) | Changed action holders to Gorry Fairhurst, Martin Duke, Raffaello Secchi, Ana Custura (IESG state changed) |
2023-02-09
|
10 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2023-02-09
|
10 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-10.txt |
2023-02-09
|
10 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2023-02-09
|
10 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-07
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed) |
2023-02-07
|
09 | Martin Duke | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | Document shepherd write-up: Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP) draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-09 1. Summary Document … Document shepherd write-up: Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP) draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-09 1. Summary Document Shepherd: David Black Responsible AD: Martin Duke Intended RFC status: Informational This document discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) for a new standard Per Hop Behavior (PHB). It considers the common observed remarking behaviors that the DiffServ field might be subjected to along an Internet path. It also notes some implications of using a specific DSCP. Many years after publication of the original DiffServ RFCs 2474 and 2475, the operational public Internet does not fully comply with their DSCP processing provisions. That has implications on choice of the recommended DSCP for any new PHB, some of which are subtle. After discovering some of these subtleties in assigning recommended DSCPs for the LE (Lower Effort) PHB and the in-progress NQB (Non Queue Building) DSCP, the TSVWG WG produced this draft to document the lessons learned, including summarizing the Internet measurement results that provide insight into the nature and prevalence of various DSCP remarking behaviors in the operational public Internet. This draft's purpose is to provide information for the community on DSCP assignment considerations, so publication as an Informational RFC is appropriate. 2. Review and Consensus The Transport Area WG (tsvwg) is a collection of people with varied interests that don't individually justify their own working groups. This draft is supported by the portion of the tsvwg working group that is familiar with and interested in Diffserv. The draft has received significant review and critique from a number of Diffserv experts, including the draft shepherd. There is clear consensus in the WG to document these lessons learned, and this draft has not been controversial in the WG. 3. Intellectual Property Each draft author has stated his/her direct, personal knowledge that any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. 4. Other Points idnits pointed out that RFC 1349 is obsolete. This reference to an obsolete RFC is deliberate and necessary to describe the history of the bits that currently constitute the DSCP field. idnits is using an outdated version of the Copyright Notice boilerplate. The boilerplate in the draft is correct, even though idnits rejects it. idnits complained about an IPv4 address in the draft, but there are no IPv4 addresses in the draft. idnits appears to be mistaking a four-component section reference (in "see Section 2.3.4.2 of [RFC2475]") for an IPv4 address. |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | Tags Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway, Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
2023-02-06
|
09 | David Black | Document shepherd write-up: Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP) draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-09 1. Summary Document … Document shepherd write-up: Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP) draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-09 1. Summary Document Shepherd: David Black Responsible AD: Martin Duke Intended RFC status: Informational This document discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) for a new standard Per Hop Behavior (PHB). It considers the common observed remarking behaviors that the DiffServ field might be subjected to along an Internet path. It also notes some implications of using a specific DSCP. Many years after publication of the original DiffServ RFCs 2474 and 2475, the operational public Internet does not fully comply with their DSCP processing provisions. That has implications on choice of the recommended DSCP for any new PHB, some of which are subtle. After discovering some of these subtleties in assigning recommended DSCPs for the LE (Lower Effort) PHB and the in-progress NQB (Non Queue Building) DSCP, the TSVWG WG produced this draft to document the lessons learned, including summarizing the Internet measurement results that provide insight into the nature and prevalence of various DSCP remarking behaviors in the operational public Internet. This draft's purpose is to provide information for the community on DSCP assignment considerations, so publication as an Informational RFC is appropriate. 2. Review and Consensus The Transport Area WG (tsvwg) is a collection of people with varied interests that don't individually justify their own working groups. This draft is supported by the portion of the tsvwg working group that is familiar with and interested in Diffserv. The draft has received significant review and critique from a number of Diffserv experts, including the draft shepherd. There is clear consensus in the WG to document these lessons learned, and this draft has not been controversial in the WG. 3. Intellectual Property Each draft author has stated his/her direct, personal knowledge that any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. 4. Other Points idnits pointed out that RFC 1349 is obsolete. This reference to an obsolete RFC is deliberate and necessary to describe the history of the bits that currently constitute the DSCP field. idnits is using an outdated version of the Copyright Notice boilerplate. The boilerplate in the draft is correct, even though idnits rejects it. idnits complained about an IPv4 address in the draft, but there are no IPv4 addresses in the draft. idnits appears to be mistaking a four-component section reference (in "see Section 2.3.4.2 of [RFC2475]") for an IPv4 address. |
2023-02-06
|
09 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-09.txt |
2023-02-06
|
09 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2023-02-06
|
09 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-06
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Custura , Gorry Fairhurst , Raffaello Secchi |
2023-02-06
|
09 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | Revised ID needed to correct a few nits found by idnis. |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | Tags Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway, Other - see Comment Log set. |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | Notification list changed to david.black@dell.com from wesley.m.eddy@gmail.com, david.black@dell.com |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | Tags Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2023-02-05
|
08 | David Black | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2022-12-13
|
08 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-08.txt |
2022-12-13
|
08 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2022-12-13
|
08 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-21
|
07 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-07.txt |
2022-11-21
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-11-21
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Custura , Gorry Fairhurst , Raffaello Secchi |
2022-11-21
|
07 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-14
|
06 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-06.txt |
2022-11-14
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-11-14
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ana Custura , Gorry Fairhurst , Raffaello Secchi |
2022-11-14
|
06 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-02
|
05 | David Black | Tags Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2022-11-02
|
05 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2022-08-11
|
05 | Gorry Fairhurst | Notification list changed to wesley.m.eddy@gmail.com, david.black@dell.com from wesley.m.eddy@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-08-11
|
05 | Gorry Fairhurst | Document shepherd changed to David L. Black |
2022-08-10
|
05 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-05.txt |
2022-08-10
|
05 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2022-08-10
|
05 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-07-24
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | Added to session: IETF-114: tsvwg Mon-1500 |
2022-07-24
|
04 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-04.txt |
2022-07-24
|
04 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2022-07-24
|
04 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-06-21
|
03 | Wesley Eddy | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-06-15
|
03 | Gorry Fairhurst | Notification list changed to wesley.m.eddy@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-06-15
|
03 | Gorry Fairhurst | Document shepherd changed to Wesley Eddy |
2022-05-25
|
03 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-03.txt |
2022-05-25
|
03 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2022-05-25
|
03 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-05-12
|
02 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-02.txt |
2022-05-12
|
02 | Ana Custura | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2022-05-12
|
02 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-22
|
01 | Gorry Fairhurst | Added to session: IETF-113: tsvwg Fri-1000 |
2022-01-24
|
01 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-01.txt |
2022-01-24
|
01 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ana Custura) |
2022-01-24
|
01 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-26
|
00 | David Black | This document now replaces draft-custura-tsvwg-dscp-considerations instead of None |
2021-07-26
|
00 | Ana Custura | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-00.txt |
2021-07-26
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2021-07-26
|
00 | Ana Custura | Set submitter to "Ana Custura ", replaces to draft-custura-tsvwg-dscp-considerations and sent approval email to group chairs: tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-07-26
|
00 | Ana Custura | Uploaded new revision |