Skip to main content

Codepoint Registry for the Flags Field in the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object
RFC 4859

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2007-04-27
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2007-04-27
01 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 4859' added by Amy Vezza
2007-04-26
01 (System) RFC published
2007-04-19
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-03-15
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-03-13
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2007-03-12
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-02-28
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-02-26
01 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-02-26
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-02-26
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-02-26
01 Bill Fenner State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Bill Fenner
2007-02-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt
2007-02-24
01 Bill Fenner State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Approved-announcement to be sent by Bill Fenner
2007-02-24
01 Bill Fenner
Adrian has a new revision with minor editorial fixes, which he would like to submit to reduce the RFC Editor's work.  This will get re-approved …
Adrian has a new revision with minor editorial fixes, which he would like to submit to reduce the RFC Editor's work.  This will get re-approved when the new version appears.
2007-02-23
01 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-02-22
2007-02-22
01 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2007-02-22
01 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-02-22
01 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-02-22
01 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-02-22
01 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens
2007-02-21
01 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2007-02-21
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-02-21
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2007-02-21
01 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2007-02-20
01 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2007-02-20
01 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Evaluation Comments:

IANA and RFC Editor Note: this document refers to a document:
draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt which has been published
as RFC 4736.

As described …
IANA Evaluation Comments:

IANA and RFC Editor Note: this document refers to a document:
draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt which has been published
as RFC 4736.

As described in the IANA Considerations section of this
document, upon approval of this document, IANA will create
a new subregistry in the RSVP TE Parameters registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters

The new subregistry will contain the following information -
as specified by the current document:

Session Attribute Object Flags -
per [RFC-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags]

Registration Procedures:
IETF Consensus

Bit Flag Name Reference
-------- ------------------------------- ---------
0x01 Local protection desired [RFC3209]
0x02 Local recording desired [RFC3209]
0x04 SE Style desired [RFC3209]
0x08 Bandwidth protection desired [RFC4090]
0x10 Node protection desired [RFC4090]
0x20 Path re-evaluation request [RFC4736]

IANA understands that this is the only action required
upon approval of this document.
2007-02-19
01 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-02-16
01 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner
2007-02-16
01 Bill Fenner Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner
2007-02-16
01 Bill Fenner Created "Approve" ballot
2007-02-16
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-02-16
01 (System) Last call text was added
2007-02-16
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-02-16
01 Bill Fenner Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-02-22 by Bill Fenner
2007-02-16
01 Bill Fenner State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner
2007-02-02
01 Bill Fenner State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner
2006-10-10
01 Bill Fenner Shepherding AD has been changed to Bill Fenner from Ross Callon
2006-10-09
01 Dinara Suleymanova
PROTO Write-up

1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready …
PROTO Write-up

1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready 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?

The document has been adequately reviewed and the wg chairs have no
concerns about the quality of the reviews.

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 have concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have
been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

None.

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?

No objections have been raised. Mild support when presented in WG
meeting, when adopted as WG I-D, and when asked the mailing list for
specific agreement to go to IESG.

Most people do not appreciate the value of having IANA registries :-(.

6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID
Checklist items ?

Yes.

8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are
there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that 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.)

All references are normative and are RFCs.

9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
Standard, Informational?)

Informational.


Loa and George
2006-10-09
01 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2006-07-12
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt