Generic Metric for the AIGP attribute
draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-07-08
|
08 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-07-08
|
08 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
2024-07-08
|
08 | Jeffrey Haas | The prior aigp version of the draft didn't gain WG consensus during the adoption call. The authors will be issuing an update to use the … The prior aigp version of the draft didn't gain WG consensus during the adoption call. The authors will be issuing an update to use the nexthop-capability for the next version of the proposal. |
2024-07-08
|
08 | Jeffrey Haas | Tag Polled for WG adoption but not adopted set. |
2024-07-08
|
08 | Jeffrey Haas | IETF WG state changed to Candidate for WG Adoption from Call For Adoption By WG Issued |
2024-06-05
|
08 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-08.txt |
2024-06-05
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-06-05
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin Wen , Bruno Decraene , Jie Dong , Ketan Talaulikar , Luay Jalil , Marcin Kozak … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin Wen , Bruno Decraene , Jie Dong , Ketan Talaulikar , Luay Jalil , Marcin Kozak , Reshma Das , Shraddha Hegde , Srihari Sangli |
2024-06-05
|
08 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2024-05-12
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-11-09
|
07 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-07.txt |
2023-11-09
|
07 | Srihari Sangli | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Srihari Sangli) |
2023-11-09
|
07 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-07
|
06 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-06.txt |
2023-11-07
|
06 | Srihari Sangli | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Srihari Sangli) |
2023-11-07
|
06 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-26
|
05 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group 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. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Adoption: 10/20 to 11/6/2023 Pro: Mishra Gyan, Robert Raszuk, Ketan Taliakur Concerns: Ketan https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VoEuqlDl5EB-CtM34HvbraYSi7o/ 1) challenges with deploying a generic metric to networks with existing aigp one challenge is to introduce of new TLVs and ensure smooth operations given the current spec in RFC7311. 2) Generic metric normalization - is allowed if specific metric is not NH resolution Normalization of generic metric is not always desired. Also, there is no indication of discontinuity for a particular metric (e.g. delay) due to fallback. Proposed change: a) carry AIGP in current metric along with color for intent. b) introduce a new NHC capability (although not exactly clear) c) Add flags for "discontinuity due to fallback" and "normalization". Robert/Peng https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e1ySoMeGZ404IGuMB5ZqcltX81A/ Peng Shaofu https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eePDQg-6E18KUDuQxBzhf6QD5KM/ 1. IMO generalized metric if agreed between parties does not require a unit type. Peng - obvious confusion per Srihari's example 2. transport metrics do need unit, and it has security risk if not in same administration Peng: How is 100ms different than 100 for a transport? Robert: Both types [units and non-units] are valuable. I do not think there is Peng: But I have a bit doubts about different AIGP metrics across multi-domains. The normalized may not get path conformed intent[accurate]. Especially in case of local configuration interactions. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Luay Jalil https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rvYm226ukbY-NsFY4L6TF0ozEkE/ bruno.decraene@orange.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7SPZ8IByT7HVxakxkDUv-SqDjY0/ Srihari Sangli https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0kjLw-X6Tcso0viBNzqozQ09swM/ 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/ |
2023-10-26
|
05 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group 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. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Adoption: 10/20 to 11/6/2023 Pro: Mishra Gyan, Robert Raszuk, Ketan Taliakur Concerns: Ketan https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VoEuqlDl5EB-CtM34HvbraYSi7o/ 1) challenges with deploying a generic metric to networks with existing aigp one challenge is to introduce of new TLVs and ensure smooth operations given the current spec in RFC7311. 2) Generic metric normalization - is allowed if specific metric is not NH resolution Normalization of generic metric is not always desired. Also, there is no indication of discontinuity for a particular metric (e.g. delay) due to fallback. Proposed change: a) carry AIGP in current metric along with color for intent. b) introduce a new NHC capability (although not exactly clear) c) Add flags for "discontinuity due to fallback" and "normalization". Robert/Peng https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e1ySoMeGZ404IGuMB5ZqcltX81A/ 1. IMO generalized metric if agreed between parties does not require a unit type. Peng - obvious confusion per Srihari's example 2. transport metrics do need unit, and it has security risk if not in same administration Peng: How is 100ms different than 100 for a transport? 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Luay Jalil https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rvYm226ukbY-NsFY4L6TF0ozEkE/ bruno.decraene@orange.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7SPZ8IByT7HVxakxkDUv-SqDjY0/ Srihari Sangli https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0kjLw-X6Tcso0viBNzqozQ09swM/ 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/ |
2023-10-26
|
05 | Susan Hares | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group 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. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Adoption: 10/20 to 11/6/2023 Pro: Mishra Gyan, Robert Raszuk, Ketan Taliakur Concerns: Ketan https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VoEuqlDl5EB-CtM34HvbraYSi7o/ 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? 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.) 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)? ## 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. 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. 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]? 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. ## 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? 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? 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? 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. Luay Jalil https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rvYm226ukbY-NsFY4L6TF0ozEkE/ bruno.decraene@orange.com https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7SPZ8IByT7HVxakxkDUv-SqDjY0/ Srihari Sangli https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/0kjLw-X6Tcso0viBNzqozQ09swM/ 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. 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.) 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? 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. 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? 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. 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]). 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. [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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/ |
2023-10-26
|
05 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-10-26
|
05 | Susan Hares | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-10-20
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Call For Adoption By WG Issued from Candidate for WG Adoption |
2023-10-11
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Candidate for WG Adoption |
2023-10-11
|
05 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to none |
2023-10-11
|
05 | Susan Hares | Changed group to Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) |
2023-10-11
|
05 | Susan Hares | Changed stream to IETF |
2023-07-10
|
05 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-05.txt |
2023-07-10
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-07-10
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bin Wen , Bruno Decraene , Marcin Kozak , Reshma Das , Shraddha Hegde , Srihari Sangli |
2023-07-10
|
05 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2023-03-28
|
04 | Jie Dong | Added to session: IETF-116: idr Thu-0030 |
2023-03-13
|
04 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-04.txt |
2023-03-13
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-13
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Reshma Das , Shraddha Hegde , Srihari Sangli |
2023-03-13
|
04 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2023-01-12
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-07-11
|
03 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-03.txt |
2022-07-11
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-07-11
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Reshma Das , Shraddha Hegde , Srihari Sangli |
2022-07-11
|
03 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-23
|
02 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-02.txt |
2022-01-23
|
02 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Srihari Sangli) |
2022-01-23
|
02 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-26
|
01 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-01.txt |
2021-07-26
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-26
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene , Reshma Das , Shraddha Hegde , Srihari Sangli |
2021-07-26
|
01 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |
2021-07-08
|
00 | Srihari Sangli | New version available: draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-generic-metric-aigp-00.txt |
2021-07-08
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-08
|
00 | Srihari Sangli | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Bruno Decraene , Reshma Das , Shraddha Hegde , Srihari Sangli |
2021-07-08
|
00 | Srihari Sangli | Uploaded new revision |