Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP)
RFC 4553
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-07-29
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag (all errata rejected)) |
|
2017-05-16
|
05 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Sasha Vainshtein" to "Sasha Vainshtein, Yaakov Stein" |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from stbryant@cisco.com, danny@tcb.net, sasha@axerra.com, yaakov_s@rad.com to danny@tcb.net, yaakov_s@rad.com, stbryant@cisco.com |
|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Allison Mankin |
|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter |
|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
|
2006-06-30
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-06-30
|
05 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4553' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-06-15
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2006-03-13
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-03-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2006-03-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2006-03-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2006-03-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Amy Vezza |
|
2006-03-06
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-03-06
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: 'Approval request sent to secretary' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2006-02-21
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-05.txt |
|
2006-02-19
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
|
2006-02-17
|
05 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] The new congestion section is excellent. |
|
2006-02-17
|
05 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
|
2006-02-15
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
|
2006-02-14
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2006-02-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-04.txt |
|
2005-12-16
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-12-15 |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] Please write substantive congestion control considerations. RFC 3985, the PW architecture, included an agreed on congestion avoidance procdure for PWs that can't … [Ballot discuss] Please write substantive congestion control considerations. RFC 3985, the PW architecture, included an agreed on congestion avoidance procdure for PWs that can't change their rates (inelastic), such as CBR. This was to shut off for some period once they measure a certain level of loss, IFF they are in a best-effort PSN. This is found in Section 6.5, paragraph three. I think the Congestion Control Considerations needs to say something like: a CBR PW SHOULD be run over traffic-engineered systems providing it AF (minimal loss, low impact on other streams) or better, to avoid risk of congestion on the PSN and the service, or it SHOULD perform the loss monitoring described in RFC 3985, section 6.5 and when the loss is higher than a threshold, shut itself down for some waiting period determined to avoid congestion pulses. |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] In section 4: 0 1 2 … [Ballot comment] In section 4: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | | PSN and multiplexing layer headers | | ... | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ I suspect it should be (i.e not 18, 26 and 34, but 10, 20 and 30): 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | | PSN and multiplexing layer headers | | ... | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ same to other figures (page 6 and 7) Page 8: RSV (reserved) and FRG (fragmentation) bits (6 to 10) - MUST be set to 0 by the PSN-bound IWF and MUST be ignored by the CE-bound IWF. probably change "(6 to 10)" into "(6 to 9)" to be in sync with figure 3! |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-12-15
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot comment] there are two sequence number mechanisms: the control word and the RTP sequence number mechanism. One MAY be used; the other is used. … [Ballot comment] there are two sequence number mechanisms: the control word and the RTP sequence number mechanism. One MAY be used; the other is used. That seems confusing. Why not require one and forbid the other or at least explain why both are permitted. I came very close to holding a discuss because I found it difficult to evaluate whether the TDM control protocol will be able to set up all the configuration parameters for this document. I would recommend having a section that specifies in one place all the things that need to be configured for this type of PW to work. That would make reviewing this document independent of the TDM control document easier. I may hold discusses on similar issues in the future. |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sam Hartman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sam Hartman |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
|
2005-12-14
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2005-12-13
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] Gen-ART review URL will be http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-03-davies.txt |
|
2005-12-13
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] Reference problem spotted by Gen-ART reviewer Elwyn Davies. Draft section 4.3.1 cites a non-existent section of RFC 3985 in a way that seems … [Ballot discuss] Reference problem spotted by Gen-ART reviewer Elwyn Davies. Draft section 4.3.1 cites a non-existent section of RFC 3985 in a way that seems normative, even though 3985 is Informational. "Bits 0 to 3 MUST be set to 0 as described in [PWE3-ARCH], Section 5.4.4" It seems the reference should be Normative and to draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-06.txt (recently approved for PS). |
|
2005-12-13
|
05 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
|
2005-12-12
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
|
2005-12-12
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] Given the use of RTP, I expected the security considerations to cover SRTP. Please add a paragraph to explain whether SRTP is … [Ballot discuss] Given the use of RTP, I expected the security considerations to cover SRTP. Please add a paragraph to explain whether SRTP is appropriate or not to provide the "encryption, integrity, and authentication" that are discussed. If it is appropriate, please explain how the SAToP Control Word is protected when the structure shown in fFigure 2b is used. |
|
2005-12-12
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2005-12-11
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley |
|
2005-12-11
|
05 | Mark Townsley | Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-12-11
|
05 | Mark Townsley | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2005-12-07
|
05 | Mark Townsley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-12-15 by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-12-07
|
05 | Mark Townsley | Note field has been cleared by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-12-07
|
05 | Mark Townsley | PROTO QUESTIONAIRRE 1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward … PROTO QUESTIONAIRRE 1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes 2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes. In addition to WG review, this design has received extensive review in other standards bodies. See Question 9 3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No 4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway. I would draw your attention to section 8 - congestion control, which may draw some comment from the transport ADs. If there is an issue in this regard, The text in section 10.1 of draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-16.txt may, form the basis of a suitable compromise. 5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus for this design. 6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about. No 7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html). Pwe3 Status Pages says it has no nits 8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative, and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) a) yes b) No |
|
2005-11-03
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: 'SB to provide proto questionairre' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-10-30
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Axerra Networks, Inc.'s statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-03.txt | |
|
2005-09-15
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2005-09-15
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-03.txt |
|
2005-07-28
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for Writeup by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-07-28
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: 'Comments raised on pwe3 list will likely result in a revised ID before taking this to the IESG. Issues are largely in relation to … [Note]: 'Comments raised on pwe3 list will likely result in a revised ID before taking this to the IESG. Issues are largely in relation to VCCV, UDP and L2TPv3. Hope this to be resolve during Paris IETF meeting.' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-07-27
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Last Call Comments: The IANA Considerations section says the following: Allocation of PW Types for the corresponding SAToP PWs is defined in [PWE3-IANA]. Do … IANA Last Call Comments: The IANA Considerations section says the following: Allocation of PW Types for the corresponding SAToP PWs is defined in [PWE3-IANA]. Do we understand correctly that there are no actual IANA actions for this document? The IANA considerations section only points out that [PWE3-IANA] makes the actual assignments. |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | Mark Townsley | Last Call was requested by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2005-07-13
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2005-07-06
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2005-07-06
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-02.txt |
|
2005-06-08
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-06-08
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: 'Needs new nomenclature based on LDP External Review. Also, questionairre from Chairs.' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-04-18
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-03-28
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Publication Requested from Publication Requested::External Party by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-03-25
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: '2005-03-25: Still waiting on other documents... 2004-12-17: this document is on hold until we push some key pwe3<br>documents through the IESG, namely:<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-01.txt … [Note]: '2005-03-25: Still waiting on other documents... 2004-12-17: this document is on hold until we push some key pwe3<br>documents through the IESG, namely:<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-01.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-14.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-07.txt' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-03-25
|
05 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to Publication Requested::External Party from Publication Requested by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-03-25
|
05 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: '2005-03-25: Still waiting on other documents...<br><br>2004-12-17: this document is on hold until we push some key pwe3<br>documents through the IESG, namely:<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-01.txt<br> … [Note]: '2005-03-25: Still waiting on other documents...<br><br>2004-12-17: this document is on hold until we push some key pwe3<br>documents through the IESG, namely:<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-01.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-14.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-07.txt' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-03-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Standard |
|
2005-03-11
|
05 | Mark Townsley | Shepherding AD has been changed to Mark Townsley from Thomas Narten |
|
2005-01-25
|
05 | Thomas Narten | State Change Notice email list have been change to stbryant@cisco.com, danny@tcb.net, sasha@axerra.com, yaakov_s@rad.com from stbryant@cisco.com, danny@tcb.net |
|
2005-01-25
|
05 | Thomas Narten | [Note]: '2004-12-17: this document is on hold until we push some key pwe3<br>documents through the IESG, namely:<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-01.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-14.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-07.txt' added … [Note]: '2004-12-17: this document is on hold until we push some key pwe3<br>documents through the IESG, namely:<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-cw-01.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-14.txt<br>draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-07.txt' added by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-07-23
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | Shepherding AD has been changed to Thomas Narten from Jon Peterson |
|
2004-07-21
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-01.txt |
|
2004-06-08
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova |
|
2003-10-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-00.txt |