Skip to main content

Registration Procedures for Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)
draft-pti-pen-registration-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-12-24
10 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2022-12-24
10 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Dick Hardt was marked no-response
2022-12-23
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2022-12-22
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2022-12-16
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2022-12-16
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2022-12-16
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2022-12-16
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2022-12-16
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2022-12-16
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2022-12-16
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2022-12-15
10 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2022-12-15
10 Robert Wilton Ballot approval text was generated
2022-12-15
10 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2022-12-15
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-12-15
10 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-10.txt
2022-12-15
10 Paul Hoffman New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman)
2022-12-15
10 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2022-12-15
09 (System) Changed action holders to Paul Hoffman, Amanda Baber (IESG state changed)
2022-12-15
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2022-12-14
09 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-12-14
09 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
No references are listed as Normative.  I find this hard to believe, given the characterization described here [1].  Please review the references and …
[Ballot comment]
No references are listed as Normative.  I find this hard to believe, given the characterization described here [1].  Please review the references and move the ones that "must be read to understand...the new RFC" to be Normative.

For example, rfc8126 is clearly a Normative reference.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
2022-12-14
09 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2022-12-13
09 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
Two minor comments:

The document mentions https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers but that is not a clickable link. Is this by design?
It is not even a …
[Ballot comment]
Two minor comments:

The document mentions https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers but that is not a clickable link. Is this by design?
It is not even a document reference where in the reference there is a link.

        This document requires two changes to the PEN registry.

Should this be "requests" instead of "requires" ? Even though I guess it is a little odd that IANA requests IANA to do something :)
2022-12-13
09 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2022-12-12
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-12-12
09 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
I have no idea why this document is needed, but presumably it is or people wouldn't have bothered writing it, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2022-12-12
09 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2022-12-12
09 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-pti-pen-registration-09

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/R-8VRNKCLe8MeOR1YBSnmmCl5cs). …
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-pti-pen-registration-09

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/R-8VRNKCLe8MeOR1YBSnmmCl5cs).

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 2
```
    IANA maintains the PEN registry in accordance with the "First Come
    First Served" registration policy described in [RFC8126].  Values are
    assigned sequentially.
```
Is it important to specify that values are assigned sequentially?
Could that limit IANA's flexibility to deal with special cases?

### Section 2.1, paragraph 3
```
    IANA may refuse to process abusive requests.
```
First, is this different from other IANA registries? Second, is IANA
alone determining what is considered "abusive"?

## 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
2022-12-12
09 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2022-12-11
09 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2022-12-08
09 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-12-06
09 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-12-15
2022-12-06
09 Robert Wilton Ballot has been issued
2022-12-06
09 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-12-06
09 Robert Wilton Created "Approve" ballot
2022-12-06
09 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2022-12-06
09 Robert Wilton Ballot writeup was changed
2022-12-04
09 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-12-02
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-12-02
09 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-pti-pen-registration-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-pti-pen-registration-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Private Enterprise Numbers (PEN) registry at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers

IANA understands that values 2187, 2188, 3513, 4164, 4565, 4600, 4913, 4999, 5099, 5144, 5201, 5683, 5777, 6260, 6619, 14827, 16739, 26975 and the range from 11670 to 11769, which had been missing from the registry, will be listed as \u201cReserved.\u201d As described in [RFC8126], reserved values can be released in the future by the IESG.

Second, also in the PEN registry, this document will be listed in the registry\u2019s \u201cReference\u201d field.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these two actions 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist
2022-11-24
09 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list.
2022-11-24
09 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2022-11-24
09 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2022-11-21
09 Joel Halpern Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list.
2022-11-18
09 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-09.txt
2022-11-18
09 Paul Hoffman New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman)
2022-11-18
09 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2022-11-11
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dick Hardt
2022-11-11
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Dick Hardt
2022-11-10
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2022-11-10
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2022-11-08
08 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Barry Leiba. Sent review to list.
2022-11-07
08 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2022-11-07
08 Barry Leiba Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Barry Leiba
2022-11-06
08 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-11-06
08 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-12-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-pti-pen-registration@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-12-04):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-pti-pen-registration@ietf.org, rwilton@cisco.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Registration Procedures for Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Registration Procedures for Private Enterprise Numbers
(PENs)'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-12-04. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes how Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs) are
  registered by IANA.  It shows how to request a new PEN and how to
  request an update to a current PEN.  It also gives a brief overview
  of PEN uses.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pti-pen-registration/



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




2022-11-06
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-11-06
08 Robert Wilton Last call was requested
2022-11-06
08 Robert Wilton Ballot approval text was generated
2022-11-06
08 Robert Wilton Ballot writeup was generated
2022-11-06
08 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2022-11-06
08 Robert Wilton Last call announcement was generated
2022-11-06
08 Robert Wilton
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

No, this is a short process document related to how IANA managed Private Enterprise Numbers.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

No.

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)?

N/A.

## 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.

None required.

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.

None required.

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]?

N/A.

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.

N/A.

## 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?

Yes.


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?

N/A.


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?

Informational.  This is an appropriate stream given that the document provides supporting documentation for an existing IANA registry.

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.  No IPR.

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.)

N/A.

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.

No.


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]).

The whole document is really about IANA considerations.


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.

None.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2022-10-21
08 Amanda Baber New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-08.txt
2022-10-21
08 Amanda Baber New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Amanda Baber)
2022-10-21
08 Amanda Baber Uploaded new revision
2022-10-14
07 Robert Wilton
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Individual Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

No, this is a short process document related to how IANA managed Private Enterprise Numbers.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

No.

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)?

N/A.

## 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.

None required.

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.

None required.

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]?

N/A.

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.

N/A.

## 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?

Yes.


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?

N/A.


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?

Informational.  This is an appropriate stream given that the document provides supporting documentation for an existing IANA registry.

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.

TBD.

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.)

N/A.

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

TBD.  Does this need a normative reference to the IANA PEN registry?


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.

No.


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]).

The whole document is really about IANA considerations.


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.

None.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2022-09-23
07 Robert Wilton IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2022-08-18
07 (System) Changed action holders to Robert Wilton (IESG state changed)
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton Notification list changed to rwilton@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton Document shepherd changed to Robert Wilton
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton Stream changed to IETF from None
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-08-18
07 Robert Wilton Shepherding AD changed to Robert Wilton
2022-08-15
07 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-07.txt
2022-08-15
07 Paul Hoffman New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Paul Hoffman)
2022-08-15
07 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2020-04-27
06 (System) Document has expired
2019-10-25
06 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-06.txt
2019-10-25
06 (System) New version approved
2019-10-25
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2019-10-25
06 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-09-26
05 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-05.txt
2019-09-26
05 (System) New version approved
2019-09-26
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2019-09-26
05 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-03-27
04 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-04.txt
2019-03-27
04 (System) New version approved
2019-03-27
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2019-03-27
04 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2019-03-27
03 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-03.txt
2019-03-27
03 (System) New version approved
2019-03-27
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2019-03-27
03 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2018-10-01
02 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-02.txt
2018-10-01
02 (System) New version approved
2018-10-01
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2018-10-01
02 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2018-04-03
01 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-01.txt
2018-04-03
01 (System) New version approved
2018-04-03
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2018-04-03
01 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision
2017-10-05
00 Paul Hoffman New version available: draft-pti-pen-registration-00.txt
2017-10-05
00 (System) New version approved
2017-10-05
00 Paul Hoffman Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Michelle Cotton , Paul Hoffman , Amanda Baber
2017-10-05
00 Paul Hoffman Uploaded new revision