Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework
RFC 5828
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
09 | (System) | Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2010-03-25
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-25
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5828' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-23
|
09 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-01-15
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-09.txt |
|
2010-01-08
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-01-07 |
|
2010-01-07
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-07
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2010-01-07
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lisa Dusseault has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2010-01-07
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2010-01-07
|
09 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-01-07
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2010-01-06
|
09 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-06
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-01-06
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-01-06
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-01-06
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-01-05
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-01-05
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] I have no problem with the approval of this document which I consider useful and well-written. There are however a few terminology and … [Ballot comment] I have no problem with the approval of this document which I consider useful and well-written. There are however a few terminology and references issues which need to be fixed before publication: 1. The document uses several times the term Ethernet Spanning Tree. This is incorrect from an IEEE 802 point of view, as Spanning Tree is designed to work with multiple 802 protocols, not only with Ethernet. I suggest that this term is replaced wherever it appears by Spanning Tree running on Ethernet or just Spanning Tree. 2. There are some abbreviations missing - one is very obvious I-TAG - it should be included in the abbreviations list especially as S-TAG is included already 3. Same as for #1 in section 6 the first phrase says "Link discovery was specified for Ethernet ..." this is not accurate as link discovery was specified for links interconnecting IEEE 802.1 bridges, it runs on Ethernet but not only on Ethernet 4. A number of IEEE 802.1 references have progressed since the references section was written - among them IEEE 802.1 Qay and IEEE 802.1AE were approved as standards |
|
2010-01-05
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-01-04
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-01-03
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-12-18
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: David McGrew. |
|
2009-12-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-12-18
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-01-07 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-18
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-08.txt |
|
2009-12-18
|
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-12-09
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew |
|
2009-12-09
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew |
|
2009-12-08
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-12-04
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2009-12-04
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-07.txt |
|
2009-11-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-11-28
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-11-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-11-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Intended status: Informational (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in … Intended status: Informational (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Deborah Brungard is the document shepherd. She has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The I-D has had a good level of discussion and review. Several liaisons were exchanged with IEEE and MEF during CCAMP's Ethernet work to ensure compatibility and cooperation between the SDOs, e.g.: https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file396.txt http://ccamp.labn.net/old_ccamp/IEEE_240707.txt (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (1.e) 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? WG consensus is solid. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html> and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is an Informational I-D that makes no requests of IANA. A null IANA section is included. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? No formal language is used. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. There has been significant recent work in increasing the capabilities of Ethernet switches and Ethernet forwarding models. As a consequence, the role of Ethernet is rapidly expanding into "transport networks" that previously were the domain of other technologies such as Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), Time-Division Multiplex (TDM) and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM). This document defines an architecture and framework for a Generalized GMPLS based control plane for Ethernet in this "transport network" capacity. GMPLS has already been specified for similar technologies. Some additional extensions to the GMPLS control plane are needed and this document provides a framework for these extensions. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is informational. |
|
2009-11-24
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-10-14
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-06.txt |
|
2009-09-01
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-05.txt |
|
2009-08-17
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-02-13
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-04.txt |
|
2008-10-27
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-03.txt |
|
2008-07-14
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-02.txt |
|
2008-02-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-01.txt |
|
2008-02-06
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-arch-00.txt |