GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation
draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-19
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-02-13
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-01-23
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-01-13
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2016-12-12
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2016-11-13
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-10-06
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-10-06
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-10-06
|
19 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-10-05
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-10-03
|
19 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2016-10-03
|
19 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-10-03
|
19 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-10-03
|
19 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-10-03
|
19 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-10-03
|
19 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-10-03
|
19 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-03
|
19 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-09-30
|
19 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-09-30
|
19 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-09-30
|
19 | Lucy Yong | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-09-30
|
19 | Lucy Yong | New version approved |
2016-09-30
|
19 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-19.txt |
2016-09-30
|
19 | Lucy Yong | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Lucy Yong" , "Xiaohu Xu" , "Edward Crabbe" , "Tom Herbert" |
2016-09-30
|
19 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note was cleared |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2016-09-30
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-09-29
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-09-28
|
18 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Rick Casarez performed the opsdir review |
2016-09-28
|
18 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-09-28
|
18 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-09-28
|
18 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-09-28
|
18 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-09-28
|
18 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank you, Lucy for the proposed text on using encryption and DTLS. |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I agree with Ben's comments about Section 1. |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] I just wanted to check something relatively new (to me anyway). This week there was an apparently record-breaking (600+Gbps) DDoS attack on a … [Ballot discuss] I just wanted to check something relatively new (to me anyway). This week there was an apparently record-breaking (600+Gbps) DDoS attack on a web site in which GRE traffic is said to have been a significant part of the attack. (See [1] for some not very detailed information.) Is the use of GRE traffic as part of DDoS well known in the relevant communities? If so, are tunnels such as those documented here involved or not? If we don't know, should we try find out before approving this? If we do know, are there additional security considerations needed here? [1] https://noise.getoto.net/tag/gre-ddos/ |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Section 5: Do you need to say that (non-handshake?) traffic that is not properly protected with DTLS MUST be discarded? - Does … [Ballot comment] - Section 5: Do you need to say that (non-handshake?) traffic that is not properly protected with DTLS MUST be discarded? - Does 6.2(c) (in the 1st list) suggest some form of new DoS vector? Not sure myself. |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-09-27
|
18 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-09-26
|
18 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I'm balloting no objection, but I have a few comments that may be worth considering: - general: The draft has a structure where … [Ballot comment] I'm balloting no objection, but I have a few comments that may be worth considering: - general: The draft has a structure where you mention requirements in one section, then go into more detail in later sections. While this is a perfectly reasonable structure, it has resulted in a fair bit of redundant 2119 language. In general it's better to avoid that because it can make future updates more error prone. In this case, most of the language is consistent, so it's probably not worth changing. But there are a few cases where the language appears inconsistent, or is restated in sufficiently different ways to be potentially confusing. I've tried to call out specifics, but may have missed some. -1, paragraph 5, first sentence: I found the sentence structure confusing. I think you mean to say that GRE-in-UDP tunnels are not safe to carry arbitrary traffic over the Internet, but it can be read to mean to say that since the internet is an arbitrary traffic environment, it's not safe to use GRE-in-UDP on it. -1, paragraph 6: When might security not be a concern? Would it make sense to start with an assumption that security _is_ a concern, then consider situations for which it might not be? - 6.1, paragraph 1: Previous sections said UDP checksums SHOULD be used for IPv4. Should this section be interpreted to mean that _if_ the checksum is used, it MUST be processes this way? If so, that could use clarification. -6.2, paragraph 2: Does the allowance to use the zero-checksum in some cases violate the MUST for UDP checksums over IPv6? -8, third paragraph: Isn’t this just a restatement of the previous requirement that all traffic carried over default gre-in-udp tunnels must be congestion controlled? -8, paragraph 5: This also seems a restatement of the requirement that traffic on generic tunnels MUST be congestion controlled. Given that you probably don’t select your network path based on the nature of the data, I think it’s better stated in the original terms. -8, last paragraph: Do circuit-breakers really keep non congestion-controlled traffic from “escaping”, or does it mitigate the damage if it does escape? -11, 2nd paragraph: Previous sections just said DTLS can be used if there are security concerns. This is not consistent with that. (I prefer the SHOULD to a "can") -11, last paragraph: Is SHOULD sufficient for this case? |
2016-09-26
|
18 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-09-26
|
18 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the well-written document. |
2016-09-26
|
18 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-09-26
|
18 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] This should be quick to resolve and may just need some clarifying text in the draft. I see section 5 has DTLS as … [Ballot discuss] This should be quick to resolve and may just need some clarifying text in the draft. I see section 5 has DTLS as a SHOULD and this is stated in the security considerations as well, to be used when privacy and security of original traffic is needed. Section 5 says that DTLS is not needed when encryption is addressed at another layer, is that the only case when it is not needed? If so, can that be made more clear in the document? If not, what other situations result in no need for DTLS? Thank you, Kathleen |
2016-09-26
|
18 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-09-23
|
18 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2016-09-22
|
18 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-09-22
|
18 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-09-19
|
18 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-09-14
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-29 |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Document shepherd write-up: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation … Document shepherd write-up: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-13 1. Summary Document Shepherd: David Black Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins This document specifies a method of encapsulating network protocol packet within GRE and UDP headers. This GRE-in-UDP encapsulation allows the UDP source port field to be used as an entropy field. This may be used for load balancing of GRE traffic in transit networks using existing ECMP mechanisms. This document also specifies GRE-in-UDP tunnel requirements for two applicability scenarios: (1) general Internet; (2) a traffic-managed controlled environment. The controlled environment has less restrictive requirements than the general Internet. This draft requires the GRE and UDP tunnel endpoints to coincide (both the GRE and UDP headers have to be applied and removed as a pair). This draft does not cover scenarios where arriving GRE traffic is UDP-encapsulated and/or GRE traffic is forwarded after UDP decapsulation. The WG has requested Proposed Standard status because this draft specifies a protocol that is intended for use in the Internet. 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 UDP encapsulation. The draft has received significant review and critique from a number of Transport experts, including the draft shepherd, and has undergone significant modification as a result. These reviews and related work on this draft have resultings in several changes to the UDP guidelines draft (also in TSVWG - rfc5405bis) - this GRE/UDP draft is now aligned with that UDP guidelines draft. This GRE/UDP draft has had a long history - it originally replaced an earlier draft that proposed encapsulation of arbitrary protocols in UDP without a shim header (draft-yong-tsvwg-udp-encap-4-ip-tunneling). This replacement focused nitial work on a single encapsulated protocol, GRE. The resulting draft then got caught up in the UDP encapsulation adventure set off by the initial (failed) IETF Last Call on the MPLS/UDP draft. A design team was formed to work out the Transport issues affecting both drafts, primarily requirements for omission of UDP checksums for IPv6 (these cannot be simply stated by reference to RFCs 6935 sand 6936, because some of the requirments apply to protocol design) and congestion control (MPLS/UDP turned out to only be deployable by network operators, and hence can rely to a large extent on network operator provisioning and traffic management). The design team's work on these two problems (and some additional concerns) lead to the publication of the MPLS/UDP draft as RFC 7510 in April 2015, with the expectation that RFC publication of the GRE/UDP draft would follow shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, that didn't happen - the underlying cause is that it was not feasible to specify a single set of requirements that cover both network operator usage of GRE/UDP (Controlled Environment) and general Internet usage (the latter does not apply to MPLS/UDP). The GRE/UDP draft was revised to specify requirements for both applicability scenarios. Multiple reviews by Transport experts have been performed on this draft subsequent to that revision, revision was done, and the shepherd belives that the draft is now (finally) ready for RFC Publication. 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 Versions of this specification have been reported for both BSD and Linux, although they may not be current with the revision being forwarded for publication yet. From the AD: The document shepherd and authors reported that Gorry Fairhurst and Jouni Korhonen both provided reviews with significant impact on the specification. The working group solicited reviews from Donald Eastlake III and Eliot Lear late in the process, and these reviews did not identify significant new issues. There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis, which has already been submitted to the IESG for RFC publication. idnits 2.14.01 didn't find any nits. The IANA considerations (two port assignments) are clear. |
2016-09-13
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-09-06
|
18 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-09-05
|
18 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-18.txt |
2016-09-05
|
17 | Lucy Yong | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-09-05
|
17 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-17.txt |
2016-08-12
|
16 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-08-12
|
16 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, the authors request two port numbers to be allocated. To complete the process of allocation of two port numbers the authors are requested submit a template for each for early allocation and put the I-D as a reference according to RFC6335 as stated in section 8.1.1: IANA MAY accept early assignment [RFC4020 ] requests (known as "early allocation" therein) from IETF working groups that reference a sufficiently stable Internet-Draft instead of a published Standards-Track RFC. IANA understands that the two actions above are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-08-12
|
16 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2016-08-12
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-08-08
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Rick Casarez. |
2016-07-25
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-07-25
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Rick Casarez |
2016-07-25
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Pignataro was rejected |
2016-07-25
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2016-07-25
|
16 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2016-07-21
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-07-21
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-07-21
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2016-07-21
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "David L. Black" , tsvwg@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: "David L. Black" , tsvwg@ietf.org, david.black@emc.com, draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG (tsvwg) to consider the following document: - 'GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation' 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 2016-08-12. 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. Please note that this Last Call for a working group document has been extended to accommodate IETF 96 and travel time afterwards. Abstract This document specifies a method of encapsulating network protocol packet within GRE and UDP headers. This GRE-in-UDP encapsulation allows the UDP source port field to be used as an entropy field. This may be used for load balancing of GRE traffic in transit networks using existing ECMP mechanisms. This document also specifies GRE-in-UDP tunnel requirements for two applicability scenarios: (1) general Internet; (2) a traffic-managed controlled environment. The controlled environment has less restrictive requirements than the general Internet. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-07-18
|
16 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16.txt |
2016-07-18
|
15 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-15.txt |
2016-07-17
|
14 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-14.txt |
2016-07-05
|
13 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-07-05
|
13 | David Black | Document shepherd write-up: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation … Document shepherd write-up: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-13 1. Summary Document Shepherd: David Black Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins This document specifies a method of encapsulating network protocol packet within GRE and UDP headers. This GRE-in-UDP encapsulation allows the UDP source port field to be used as an entropy field. This may be used for load balancing of GRE traffic in transit networks using existing ECMP mechanisms. This document also specifies GRE-in-UDP tunnel requirements for two applicability scenarios: (1) general Internet; (2) a traffic-managed controlled environment. The controlled environment has less restrictive requirements than the general Internet. This draft requires the GRE and UDP tunnel endpoints to coincide (both the GRE and UDP headers have to be applied and removed as a pair). This draft does not cover scenarios where arriving GRE traffic is UDP-encapsulated and/or GRE traffic is forwarded after UDP decapsulation. The WG has requested Proposed Standard status because this draft specifies a protocol that is intended for use in the Internet. 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 UDP encapsulation. The draft has received significant review and critique from a number of Transport experts, including the draft shepherd, and has undergone significant modification as a result. These reviews and related work on this draft have resultings in several changes to the UDP guidelines draft (also in TSVWG - rfc5405bis) - this GRE/UDP draft is now aligned with that UDP guidelines draft. This GRE/UDP draft has had a long history - it originally replaced an earlier draft that proposed encapsulation of arbitrary protocols in UDP without a shim header (draft-yong-tsvwg-udp-encap-4-ip-tunneling). This replacement focused nitial work on a single encapsulated protocol, GRE. The resulting draft then got caught up in the UDP encapsulation adventure set off by the initial (failed) IETF Last Call on the MPLS/UDP draft. A design team was formed to work out the Transport issues affecting both drafts, primarily requirements for omission of UDP checksums for IPv6 (these cannot be simply stated by reference to RFCs 6935 sand 6936, because some of the requirments apply to protocol design) and congestion control (MPLS/UDP turned out to only be deployable by network operators, and hence can rely to a large extent on network operator provisioning and traffic management). The design team's work on these two problems (and some additional concerns) lead to the publication of the MPLS/UDP draft as RFC 7510 in April 2015, with the expectation that RFC publication of the GRE/UDP draft would follow shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, that didn't happen - the underlying cause is that it was not feasible to specify a single set of requirements that cover both network operator usage of GRE/UDP (Controlled Environment) and general Internet usage (the latter does not apply to MPLS/UDP). The GRE/UDP draft was revised to specify requirements for both applicability scenarios. Multiple reviews by Transport experts have been performed on this draft subsequent to that revision, revision was done, and the shepherd belives that the draft is now (finally) ready for RFC Publication. 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 There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis, which has already been submitted to the IESG for RFC publication. idnits 2.14.01 didn't find any nits. The IANA considerations (two port assignments) are clear. |
2016-07-05
|
13 | David Black | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
2016-07-05
|
13 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2016-07-05
|
13 | David Black | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-07-05
|
13 | David Black | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-07-05
|
13 | David Black | Changed document writeup |
2016-07-04
|
13 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-13.txt |
2016-06-29
|
12 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-12.txt |
2016-03-23
|
11 | Gorry Fairhurst | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-03-23
|
11 | Gorry Fairhurst | In WGLC as PS. |
2016-03-23
|
11 | Gorry Fairhurst | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-03-10
|
11 | David Black | Notification list changed to "David L. Black" <david.black@emc.com> |
2016-03-10
|
11 | David Black | Document shepherd changed to David L. Black |
2016-03-10
|
11 | David Black | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-03-10
|
11 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-11.txt |
2016-03-01
|
10 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-10.txt |
2016-01-26
|
09 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-09.txt |
2015-12-21
|
08 | David Black | This document now replaces draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap instead of None |
2015-10-16
|
08 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-08.txt |
2015-07-04
|
07 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-07.txt |
2015-03-09
|
06 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-06.txt |
2015-03-06
|
05 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-05.txt |
2015-02-11
|
04 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-04.txt |
2014-10-27
|
03 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-03.txt |
2014-07-01
|
02 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-02.txt |
2014-02-13
|
01 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-01.txt |
2014-01-10
|
00 | Lucy Yong | New version available: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-00.txt |