Skip to main content

Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-22

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-12-08
22 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2023-12-08
22 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2023-12-08
22 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2023-12-06
22 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress
2023-12-06
22 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2023-12-06
22 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-12-06
22 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2023-12-06
22 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2023-12-06
22 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-12-06
22 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2023-12-06
22 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2023-12-06
22 Martin Duke IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2023-12-05
22 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed)
2023-12-05
22 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-12-05
22 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-22.txt
2023-12-05
22 Bob Briscoe New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2023-12-05
22 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2023-11-30
21 (System) Changed action holders to Bob Briscoe, John Kaippallimalil (IESG state changed)
2023-11-30
21 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2023-11-30
21 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2023-11-30
21 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-11-30
21 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Susan Hares for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/G7OyARFeLUNF3GnMjBSWmIjm2W4). …
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Susan Hares for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/G7OyARFeLUNF3GnMjBSWmIjm2W4).

## Comments

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "MUST NOT", "SHALL NOT", "OPTIONAL",
"SHALL", "SHOULD NOT", "REQUIRED", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST", "MAY", and "SHOULD",
but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains some
text with a similar beginning.)

Document has a TLP Section 6.c.iii "pre-5378" boilerplate. Is this really
needed?

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

* Terms `native` and `natively`; alternatives might be `built-in`,
  `fundamental`, `ingrained`, `intrinsic`, `original`

## 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

Document references `draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim-19`, but `-22` is the
latest available revision.

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

* http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk39/tk51/technologies_tech_note09186a00800fbc76.shtml
* http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=5454061
* http://bobbriscoe.net/

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 8
```
tination hosts were ECN-capable. Otherwise its congestion markings would nev
                                ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Otherwise".
(Also elsewhere in the document.)

#### Section 1, paragraph 10
```
y do not all fit a common pattern. Instead they have been divided into a few
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Instead".
(Also elsewhere in the document.)

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 2
```
[RFC3168] and updated by [RFC8311]. Also the guidelines for AQM designers [RF
                                    ^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Also".

#### Section 1.2, paragraph 3
```
ned for alternative ECN semantics. However it reinforces the same point - tha
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

#### Section 1.2, paragraph 5
```
fic class indicated by the DSCP. Therefore correct propagation of congestion
                                ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore".
(Also elsewhere in the document.)

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 7
```
deployment or deployment by the general public (e.g. Ethernet). For such 'pl
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider using only "public" to avoid wordiness.

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 15
```
arriving in incoming headers. For example it might copy any incoming congest
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma is probably missing here.

#### Section 4.6, paragraph 26
```
the protocol header, care SHOULD be take to ensure that the field used is sp
                                    ^^^^
```
Did you mean "taken"?

#### Section 4.6, paragraph 31
```
hat encapsulate IP (v4 & v6) in a consistent way, so that IP continues to ful
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "consistently" to avoid
wordiness.

## 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
2023-11-30
21 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2023-11-30
21 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-11-30
21 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] Position for Zaheduzzaman Sarker has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2023-11-30
21 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification, I consider it to be a very important work.
2023-11-30
21 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2023-11-30
21 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-11-29
21 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document, and to Tim Wicinski for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2023-10-31/).

I think that it would have been …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this document, and to Tim Wicinski for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2023-10-31/).

I think that it would have been helpful for the Abstract to be more specific about the "Updates" - "This document is included in BCP 89 and updates the advice to subnetwork designers about ECN in RFC 3819." -- how does it update the advice? What has changed from RFC3819? The purpose of this is to help readers of the abstract understand what changed / where to focus their attention, and this seems to boil down to "read the whole document".
2023-11-29
21 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-11-29
21 Francesca Palombini
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Paul Kyzivat for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/jJEK_HJPd3THXWsbRlEjPiP9lEA/.

Running the id-nits …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Paul Kyzivat for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/jJEK_HJPd3THXWsbRlEjPiP9lEA/.

Running the id-nits tool on this document (https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21.txt), I was warned of the following:

  -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  The
    disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have
    been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights
    to the IETF Trust.  If you are able to get all authors (current and
    original) to grant those rights, 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.)

But I saw no hint of why that is in the shepherd write-up. Is it because this is an update to 3819? I would understand better if this was an "obsolete"... Is it common practice? (This is more a question to the responsible AD and the rest of the IESG than to the authors).
2023-11-29
21 Francesca Palombini Ballot comment text updated for Francesca Palombini
2023-11-29
21 Francesca Palombini [Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Paul Kyzivat for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/jJEK_HJPd3THXWsbRlEjPiP9lEA/.
2023-11-29
21 Francesca Palombini [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Francesca Palombini
2023-11-28
21 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one nits.

Special …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one nits.

Special thanks to Gorry Fairhurst for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21-intdir-telechat-haberman-2023-11-16/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## v4 v6

Please use "IPv6" rather than "v6" in written documents ;-)
2023-11-28
21 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-11-28
21 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, it is well written and an interesting read.

I have just one very minor comment for you to …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document, it is well written and an interesting read.

I have just one very minor comment for you to consider please:

(1) p 4, sec 1.  Introduction

  Therefore, the capitalized terms 'SHOULD' or 'SHOULD NOT' are often
  used in preference to 'MUST' or 'MUST NOT', because it is difficult
  to know the compromises that will be necessary in each protocol
  design.  If a particular protocol design chooses not to follow a
  'SHOULD (NOT)' given in the advice below, it MUST include a sound
  justification.

I would suggest "must include a sound justification", i.e., otherwise it is unclear how the justification affects protocol conformance.

Regards,
Rob
2023-11-28
21 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-11-26
21 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-11-24
21 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-11-16
21 Brian Haberman Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list.
2023-11-16
21 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Dan Harkins for the SECDIR review.
2023-11-16
21 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-11-15
21 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman
2023-11-15
21 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Assignment of request for Telechat review by INTDIR to Dirk Von Hugo was marked no-response
2023-11-14
21 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Dirk Von Hugo
2023-11-14
21 Éric Vyncke Requested Telechat review by INTDIR
2023-11-13
21 Martin Duke Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-11-30
2023-11-13
21 Martin Duke Ballot has been issued
2023-11-13
21 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-11-13
21 Martin Duke Created "Approve" ballot
2023-11-13
21 Martin Duke IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2023-11-13
21 Martin Duke Ballot writeup was changed
2023-11-10
21 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed)
2023-11-10
21 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-11-10
21 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2023-11-10
21 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-21.txt
2023-11-10
21 Bob Briscoe New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2023-11-10
21 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2023-11-06
20 (System) Changed action holders to Bob Briscoe, John Kaippallimalil (IESG state changed)
2023-11-06
20 Martin Duke IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-11-02
20 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-11-01
20 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-11-01
20 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20, 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 Sr. Specialist
2023-10-31
20 Dan Harkins Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Harkins. Sent review to list.
2023-10-31
20 Tim Wicinski Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tim Wicinski. Sent review to list.
2023-10-28
20 Susan Hares Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list.
2023-10-26
20 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dan Harkins
2023-10-25
20 Paul Kyzivat Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat.
2023-10-25
20 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski
2023-10-19
20 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Susan Hares
2023-10-19
20 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat
2023-10-19
20 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-10-19
20 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-11-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: David Black , draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@ietf.org, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-11-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: David Black , draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines@ietf.org, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Transport and Services Working Group
WG (tsvwg) to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines for Adding
Congestion Notification to Protocols that
  Encapsulate IP'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2023-11-02. 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 purpose of this document is to guide the design of congestion
  notification in any lower layer or tunnelling protocol that
  encapsulates IP.  The aim is for explicit congestion signals to
  propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP.  Then the
  IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
  congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
  transport layer (L4).  Following these guidelines should assure
  interworking among IP layer and lower layer congestion notification
  mechanisms, whether specified by the IETF or other standards bodies.
  This document is included in BCP 89 and updates the advice to
  subnetwork designers about ECN in RFC 3819.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines/



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


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    rfc5129: Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    rfc6040: Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification (Proposed Standard - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
    draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support: TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) Support (None - Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))



2023-10-19
20 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-10-19
20 Martin Duke Last call was requested
2023-10-19
20 Martin Duke Last call announcement was generated
2023-10-19
20 Martin Duke Ballot approval text was generated
2023-10-19
20 Martin Duke Ballot writeup was generated
2023-10-19
20 Martin Duke IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-10-18
20 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed)
2023-10-18
20 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-10-18
20 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-20.txt
2023-10-18
20 Bob Briscoe New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2023-10-18
20 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2023-10-12
19 (System) Changed action holders to Bob Briscoe, John Kaippallimalil (IESG state changed)
2023-10-12
19 Martin Duke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2023-10-09
19 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Duke (IESG state changed)
2023-10-09
19 Martin Duke IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2023-09-30
19 Gorry Fairhurst


# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus …


# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was strong strong support from the working group for adopting this and for publishing as a BCP.
During development there was review in TSVWG and coordination with groups outside the IETF, see below.
When published, this specification will update RFC3819 (and include in this BCP).

The WG reached consensus to publish following a WGLC that concluded 25th May 2021. There were some objections to this consensus.  A number of issues were raised by the WG and were addressed in early development. The document then became mature and has already been used as informational reference in published RFCs. After WGLC discussion focussed on issues to complete the document: finalising the examples, interactions with L4S and completion of the document. 

Various factors contributed to a final delay in progression to publication, including additional discussion on specific parts of the draft and the included examples, availability of a WG Chair review, unavailability of the editors for a period. The Chairs think that all topics raised in the WGLC have now been discussed and the text has been updated.  Rev -18 of the ID was published 7th September 2023 and is ready to proceed.

This ID ought to be published as an RFC at the same time as draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Sebastian Moeller repeatedly questioned on the mailing list the use of recommendations that were based on an earlier BCP, i.e. RFC 7141, saying that some of the earlier concepts recommended in RFC 7141 were yet to be implemented. The chairs and editors are content that the current revision has considered this feedback and looked into these topics, and that citing RFC 7141 is consistent with good practice.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This ID targets publication s a BCP.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

* IEEE: No known current relevant work, but was made aware of the work.
  Liaison request: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1364/ (2015)

* 3GPP: 6 relevant WGs and 20 relevant TRs.
  These were analysed and a formal response returned on behalf of the WG.
    Formal liaison response: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1499/
    For summary, see slides 3-8: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-tsvwg-11.pdf


The primary interactions is between packet marking in the network and the protocol mechanisms developed by transport area working groups. These are TSV Area topics.

INAREA review is valued, since this has implication on the forwarding within routers.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Checked.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Best Current Practice.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, this was confirmed by both editors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some formatting warnings that are expected to be resolved in RFC-Edit.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

It will update RFC3819, and should be included in BCP 89.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This ID includes no request to IANA.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This ID includes no request to IANA.

----

Notes:

These RFCs have referenced this informatively as work-in-progress:

RFC 8033 PIE: A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem

RFC 8087 The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
RFC 8311 Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
RFC 9305 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Generic Protocol Extension

These IDs will reference this RFC when published:

draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) Support  - normative reference, in RFC-ED queue.
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim - normative reference, submitted for publication.
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture - work in progress.
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst


# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus …


# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was strong strong support from the working group for adopting this and for publishing as a BCP.
During development there was review in TSVWG and coordination with groups outside the IETF, see below.
When published, this specification will update RFC3819 (and include in this BCP).

The WG reached consensus to publish following a WGLC that concluded 25th May 2021. There were some objections to this consensus.  A number of issues were raised by the WG and were addressed in early development. The document then became mature and has already been used as informational reference in published RFCs. After WGLC discussion focussed on issues to complete the document: finalising the examples, interactions with L4S and completion of the document. 

Various factors contributed to a final delay in progression to publication, including additional discussion on specific parts of the draft and the included examples, availability of a WG Chair review, unavailability of the editors for a period. The Chairs think that all topics raised in the WGLC have now been discussed and the text has been updated.  Rev -18 of the ID was published 7th September 2023 and is ready to proceed.

This ID ought to be published as an RFC at the same time as draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Sebastian Moeller repeatedly questioned on the mailing list the use of recommendations that were based on an earlier BCP, i.e. RFC 7141, noting that (to his knowledge) some of the earlier concepts recommended in RFC 7141 were yet to be implemented. The chairs and editors are content that the current revision has considered this feedback and looked into these topics, and that citing RFC 7141 is consistent with good practice.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This ID targets publication s a BCP.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

* IEEE: No known current relevant work, but was made aware of the work.
  Liaison request: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1364/ (2015)

* 3GPP: 6 relevant WGs and 20 relevant TRs.
  These were analysed and a formal response returned on behalf of the WG.
    Formal liaison response: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1499/
    For summary, see slides 3-8: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-tsvwg-11.pdf


The primary interactions is between packet marking in the network and the protocol mechanisms developed by transport area working groups. These are TSV Area topics.

INAREA review is valued, since this has implication on the forwarding within routers.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Checked.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Best Current Practice.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, this was confirmed by both editors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some formatting warnings that are expected to be resolved in RFC-Edit.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

It will update RFC3819, and should be included in BCP 89.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This ID includes no request to IANA.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This ID includes no request to IANA.

----

Notes:

These RFCs have referenced this informatively as work-in-progress:

RFC 8033 PIE: A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem

RFC 8087 The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
RFC 8311 Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
RFC 9305 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Generic Protocol Extension

These IDs will reference this RFC when published:

draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) Support  - normative reference, in RFC-ED queue.
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim - normative reference, submitted for publication.
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture - work in progress.
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst Responsible AD changed to Martin Duke
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst


# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus …


# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was strong strong support from the working group for adopting this and for publishing as a BCP.
During development there was review in TSVWG and coordination with groups outside the IETF, see below.
When published, this specification will update RFC3819 (and include in this BCP).

The WG reached consensus to publish following a WGLC that concluded 25th May 2021. There were some objections to this consensus.  A number of issues were raised by the WG and were addressed in early development. The document then became mature and has already been used as informational reference in published RFCs. After WGLC discussion focussed on issues to complete the document: finalising the examples, interactions with L4S and completion of the document. 

Various factors contributed to a final delay in progression to publication, including additional discussion on specific parts of the draft and the included examples, availability of a WG Chair review, unavailability of the editors for a period. The Chairs think that all topics raised in the WGLC have now been discussed and the text has been updated.  Rev -18 of the ID was published 7th September 2023 and is ready to proceed.

This ID ought to be published as an RFC at the same time as draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim.


2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

Sebastian Moeller repeatedly questioned on the mailing list the use of recommendations that were based on an earlier BCP, i.e. RFC 7141, noting that (to his knowledge) some of the earlier concepts recommended in RFC 7141 were yet to be implemented. The chairs and editors are content that the current revision has considered this feedback and looked into these topics, and that citing RFC 7141 is consistent with good practice.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This ID targets publication s a BCP.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

* IEEE: No known current relevant work, but was made aware of the work.
  Liaison request: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1364/ (2015)

* 3GPP: 6 relevant WGs and 20 relevant TRs.
  These were analysed and a formal response returned on behalf of the WG.
    Formal liaison response: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1499/
    For summary, see slides 3-8: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/slides/slides-95-tsvwg-11.pdf


The primary interactions is between packet marking in the network and the protocol mechanisms developed by transport area working groups. These are TSV Area topics.

INAREA review is valued, since this has implication on the forwarding within routers.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not applicable.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

Not applicable.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

Not applicable.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

This is ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

Checked.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Best Current Practice.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, this was confirmed by both editors.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are some formatting warnings that are expected to be resolved in RFC-Edit.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

It will update RFC3819, and should be included in BCP 89.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This ID includes no request to IANA.


21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This ID includes no request to IANA.

----

Notes:

These RFCs have referenced this informatively as work-in-progress:

RFC 8033 PIE: A Lightweight Control Scheme to Address the Bufferbloat Problem

RFC 8087 The Benefits of Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
RFC 8311 Relaxing Restrictions on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
RFC 9305 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Generic Protocol Extension

These IDs will reference this RFC when published:

draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) Support  - normative reference, in RFC-ED queue.
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc6040update-shim Propagating Explicit Congestion Notification Across IP Tunnel Headers Separated by a Shim - normative reference, submitted for publication.
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture - work in progress.
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2023-09-29
19 Gorry Fairhurst Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-09-14
19 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-19.txt
2023-09-14
19 Bob Briscoe New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2023-09-14
19 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2023-09-12
18 Gorry Fairhurst Notification list changed to "David Black" <david.black@dell.com>, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk from "David Black" <david.black@dell.com> because the document shepherd was set
2023-09-12
18 Gorry Fairhurst Document shepherd changed to Gorry Fairhurst
2023-09-09
18 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2023-09-07
18 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-18.txt
2023-09-07
18 Bob Briscoe New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2023-09-07
18 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2023-08-23
17 Gorry Fairhurst The Chairs worked with the document editor to revise the text around the two possible design goals, and a new revision is expected.
2023-08-23
17 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2023-01-12
17 (System) Document has expired
2022-07-12
17 Wesley Eddy Changed document external resources from: None to:

github_repo https://github.com/bbriscoe/ecn-encap (XML source)
2022-07-11
17 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-17.txt
2022-07-11
17 Bob Briscoe New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2022-07-11
17 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2021-11-26
16 (System) Document has expired
2021-05-25
16 Gorry Fairhurst The WG chairs believe that the latest revisions of the draft resolves the last of the open issues from WG Last Call.
2021-05-25
16 Gorry Fairhurst Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2021-05-25
16 Gorry Fairhurst IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2021-05-25
16 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-16.txt
2021-05-25
16 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2021-05-25
16 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2021-03-08
15 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-15.txt
2021-03-08
15 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2021-03-08
15 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2020-11-15
14 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-14.txt
2020-11-15
14 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Bob Briscoe)
2020-11-15
14 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2019-11-21
13 (System) Document has expired
2019-05-20
13 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13.txt
2019-05-20
13 (System) New version approved
2019-05-20
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Kaippallimalil , Bob Briscoe , tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, Patricia Thaler
2019-05-20
13 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2019-03-29
12 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-12.txt
2019-03-29
12 (System) New version approved
2019-03-29
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Kaippallimalil , Bob Briscoe , Patricia Thaler
2019-03-29
12 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2018-11-12
11 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-11.txt
2018-11-12
11 (System) New version approved
2018-11-12
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Kaippallimalil , Bob Briscoe , Patricia Thaler
2018-11-12
11 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2018-09-19
10 (System) Document has expired
2018-03-18
10 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-10.txt
2018-03-18
10 (System) New version approved
2018-03-18
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Kaippallimalil , Bob Briscoe , Patricia Thaler
2018-03-18
10 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2017-07-20
09 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-09.txt
2017-07-20
09 (System) New version approved
2017-07-20
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Kaippallimalil , Bob Briscoe , Patricia Thaler
2017-07-20
09 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2017-07-18
08 David Black Added to session: IETF-99: tsvwg  Tue-1330
2017-03-27
08 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-08.txt
2017-03-27
08 (System) New version approved
2017-03-27
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Kaippallimalil , Bob Briscoe , tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, Patricia Thaler
2017-03-27
08 Bob Briscoe Uploaded new revision
2017-01-09
07 (System) Document has expired
2016-11-23
07 David Black Added to session: IETF-97: tsvwg  Tue-1330
2016-11-22
07 David Black Notification list changed to "David Black" <david.black@dell.com>
2016-11-22
07 David Black Document shepherd changed to David L. Black
2016-07-08
07 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-07.txt
2016-07-08
06 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-06.txt
2016-04-06
05 Gorry Fairhurst Added to session: IETF-95: tsvwg  Tue-1400
2016-03-21
05 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-05.txt
2015-12-21
04 David Black This document now replaces draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines instead of None
2015-10-08
04 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-04.txt
2015-09-25
03 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-03.txt
2015-03-26
02 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-02.txt
2014-11-16
01 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-01.txt
2014-03-07
00 Bob Briscoe New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-00.txt