Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions
RFC 7060
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2013-11-25
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2013-11-22
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7060">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2013-10-29
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7060">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2013-10-16
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2013-09-19
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2013-09-18
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2013-09-17
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2013-09-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2013-09-12
|
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2013-09-12
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - The write-up says an implementation poll was sent out and results would be in "soon" - are they in? - The security … [Ballot comment] - The write-up says an implementation poll was sent out and results would be in "soon" - are they in? - The security considerations just says "nothing new here" which is always a bit offputting for a SEC AD:-) Can you explain why there is nothing new here? (I didn't have time to trace all the references sorry, and I'm not asking that you put in new text but do wonder if there's an easy answer to the question.) |
|
2013-09-12
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2013-09-12
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2013-09-11
|
04 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
|
2013-09-11
|
04 | Francis Dupont | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
|
2013-09-11
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
|
2013-09-11
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
|
2013-09-11
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] I see Section 1.3 manageability in RFC 6388. Good. Please add a sentence/a new section such as this one: Section … [Ballot comment] I see Section 1.3 manageability in RFC 6388. Good. Please add a sentence/a new section such as this one: Section 1.3 "manageability" in RFC 6388 stresses the need to develop an additional MIB module, next to RFC3815, to support P2MP in LDP. LDP multipoint extension for targeted LDP should also be covered by this MIB module. |
|
2013-09-11
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2013-09-10
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2013-09-09
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2013-09-09
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2013-09-06
|
04 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2013-09-06
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
|
2013-09-05
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
|
2013-09-05
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
|
2013-09-05
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2013-09-12 |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Eric Rosen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2013-09-04
|
04 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-04.txt |
|
2013-09-03
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2013-09-03
|
03 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
|
2013-09-03
|
03 | Francis Dupont | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont. |
|
2013-09-03
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2013-08-22
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
|
2013-08-22
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont |
|
2013-08-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
|
2013-08-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <mpls@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <mpls@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt> (Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions' <draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-09-03. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract As specified in RFC 6388, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be used to set up Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to- Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths. However, RFC 6388 presupposes that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly connected. The LDP base specification (RFC 5036) allows for the case where the two endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected; such a session is known as a "Targeted LDP" session. This document provides the specification for using the LDP P2MP/MP2MP extensions over a Targeted LDP session. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2013-08-20
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The MPLS working group request that: Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt is published as an RFC on the Standards Track. This document extends the standards track RFC 6388 (Multipoint Extensions to LDP) by specifying new procedures to handle some use cases that cannot be handled by RFC 6388 alone. Upon approval of this document, these procedures become part of the Multipoint Extensions to LDP, and thus it is appropriate to specify them in a standards track document. (2) 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 RFC 6388 specifies how Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be used to set up Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to- Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths. RFC 6388 presupposes that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly connected. The LDP base specification (RFC 5036) allows for the case where the two endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected; such a session is known as a "Targeted LDP" session. This document provides the specification for using the LDP P2MP/MP2MP extensions over a Targeted LDP session. 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? An implementation poll has been sent to the working group and the information on implementations will be updated as soon as we received information from this poll. There is no need for MIB Doctor or Media Type reviews. This document did have a fairly normal working group last call, with good comments that have been addressed. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson is the document shepherd. Adrian Farrel is/will be the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has reviewed three times. When the document first were published as an individual draft, prior to the poll to make it a working group document and as part of pre-paring the wglc. The document shepherd believes it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. No such concerns! (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes - all three authors have confirmed tht they are not aware of any IPR for this doucment. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPR disclosures on this document. (9) 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? The working group is behind this document. It has been well discussed and reviewed. (10) 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 publicly available.) No such threats. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no such formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? There are only normative references in this document, all of them to existing RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no requests for IANA actions in this document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No formal language. |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for <a href="/doc/draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp/">draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp</a> |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2013-08-12
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2013-08-07
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
|
2013-08-06
|
03 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
|
2013-08-06
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
|
2013-08-06
|
03 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
|
2013-08-05
|
03 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-03.txt |
|
2013-07-10
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
|
2013-07-10
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
|
2013-06-24
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-02.txt |
|
2013-03-14
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Annotation tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
|
2013-01-28
|
01 | Loa Andersson | IPR Poll started |
|
2013-01-28
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Waiting for IPR Poll |
|
2013-01-28
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-01.txt |
|
2012-08-03
|
00 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-00.txt |