Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching
RFC 6004
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2010-10-11
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-10-11
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6004' by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-10-10
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-04-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2010-04-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2010-04-19
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-04-14
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2010-04-13
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Sean Turner |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] The SECDIR review by Paul Hoffman noted that the security considerations indicates that no new security considerations are introduced by the protocol. However, … [Ballot discuss] The SECDIR review by Paul Hoffman noted that the security considerations indicates that no new security considerations are introduced by the protocol. However, the normal RSVP has hop-by-hop integrity protection but this ID uses non-hop-byhop notifications. So, it seems that in the "normal RSVP-TE security model" does not actually provide end-to-end notification integrity. I did not see a response that indicated that a security consideration addressing non-hop-by-hop integrity is not needed and the rationale for it. |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-04-08
|
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-04-07
|
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-04-07
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-04-07
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-04-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-04-02
|
04 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2010-03-12
|
04 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 |
|
2010-03-05
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-05
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-03-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-23
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Attributes TLV Space" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters Type Name … IANA comments: Action #1: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Attributes TLV Space" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters Type Name Reference ---- ----------- --------- TBD Endpoint ID [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04] QUESTION: The document refers to the registry as "CALL_ATTRIBUTES TLV Space." We can't find a registry with that name. Is this correct? Action #2: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "LSP Encoding Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- TBD (14, if available) Line (e.g., 8B/10B) [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04] Action #3: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Switching Types" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters Value Type Reference ----- --------------------------- --------- TBD (30, if available) Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04] Note: the document requests that http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib be updated to reflect this change in IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION OLD: psc4(4), -- Packet-Switch-Capable 4 l2sc(51), -- Layer-2-Switch-Capable NEW: psc4(4), -- Packet-Switch-Capable 4 EVPL(TBD) -- Ethernet Virtual Private Line l2sc(51), -- Layer-2-Switch-Capable We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
|
2010-02-22
|
04 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-02-20
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Paul Hoffman. |
|
2010-02-11
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
|
2010-02-11
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Hoffman |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-02-08
|
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-01-16
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-01-13
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-01-04
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt Intended status: Proposed Standard (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of … Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt Intended status: Proposed Standard (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, ITU, and MEF during CCAMP's Ethernet work to ensure compatibility and cooperation between the SDOs. (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]. Three references are in the publication process. 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? The IANA section looks good. (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. This document describes a method for controlling two specific types of Ethernet switching via Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). This document supports the types of switching corresponding to the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. Specifically, switching in support of Ethernet private line and Ethernet virtual private line services are covered. Support for MEF and ITU defined parameters is also covered. 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? There are no known implementations, but it is expected that several vendors plan to implement. |
|
2010-01-04
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-01-04
|
04 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the document shepherd' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-10-14
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04.txt |
|
2009-08-29
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-02-26
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-03.txt |
|
2008-08-08
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-02.txt |
|
2008-07-14
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt |
|
2008-04-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-00.txt |