Skip to main content

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