Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support for Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 User Network Interface (UNI)
RFC 6005
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2010-10-11
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-10-11
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6005' by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-10-10
|
03 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-04-12
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-04-08
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-04-08
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-04-08
|
03 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-04-07
|
03 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-04-07
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-04-07
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] In section 6, it is hard to parse: "information that takes occurs per Section 7.2 of [RFC4974]." |
|
2010-04-07
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
|
2010-04-07
|
03 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-04-06
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot comment] A few editorial comments: section 4, first sentence says there is one additonal requirement. Is that what is described in 4.1? The text … [Ballot comment] A few editorial comments: section 4, first sentence says there is one additonal requirement. Is that what is described in 4.1? The text doesn't explciitly state what the additional requirement is. It might be good to add to the first sentence ",as described in section 4.1." s/one additional ... requirements/one additional ... requirement/ s/takes occurs/occurs/ or s/takes occurs/takes place/ idnits raises some issues that should be resolved. |
|
2010-04-06
|
03 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington |
|
2010-04-06
|
03 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-04-02
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-04-02
|
03 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
|
2010-03-12
|
03 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 |
|
2010-03-05
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-05
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-03-04
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-02-25
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-25
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-22
|
03 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters 24 Routing Problem [RFC3209] This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error Value sub-codes: TBD = Unknown Endpoint [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-03] NOTE: the document suggests value 28, but that value has been assigned. IANA will assign the next available number in that range We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
|
2010-02-22
|
03 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-02-11
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Love Astrand |
|
2010-02-11
|
03 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Love Astrand |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-02-08
|
03 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-01-17
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-01-13
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-03.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-mef-uni-03.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]. Two 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 a Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) based User-Network Interface (UNI). This document supports the types of switching required by the Ethernet services that have been defined in the context of the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) G.8011. This document is the UNI companion to "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Support For Metro Ethernet Forum and G.8011 Ethernet Service Switching". This document does not define or limit the underlying intra-domain or Internal NNI (I-NNI) technology used to support the UNI. 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
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-10-14
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-03.txt |
|
2009-08-29
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-02-26
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt |
|
2008-08-08
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-01.txt |
|
2008-04-14
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-00.txt |