Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry
RFC 7214
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
04 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh. However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries. This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" heading. This document updates RFC 5586. This document also updates RFCs 6374, 6378, 6427, and 6428.') |
|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2014-05-30
|
04 | (System) | IANA registries were updated to include RFC7214 |
|
2014-05-29
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2014-04-16
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7214">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2014-04-11
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7214">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2014-03-12
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2014-02-11
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2014-02-10
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2014-02-07
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2014-02-07
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2014-02-07
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2014-01-30
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2014-01-28
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2014-01-28
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2014-01-28
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2014-01-27
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2014-01-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2014-01-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2014-01-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2014-01-27
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-01-26
|
04 | Carlos Pignataro | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2014-01-26
|
04 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-04.txt |
|
2014-01-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-01-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
|
2014-01-24
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2014-01-23
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2014-01-23
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point: Updates: RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing Given that … [Ballot comment] My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point: Updates: RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing Given that these texts are in the RFC Editor's queue, albeit about to be released by a blocking reference, it would be clearer to the reader if we were to modify the IANA section directly using an RFC Editor's note and remove the update that this RFC proposes. Given that the shepherd and the AD are the same for all three drafts this should be straightforward to address. In addressing this the note about changing the references should also be addressed. |
|
2014-01-23
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
|
2014-01-23
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2014-01-23
|
03 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2014-01-23
|
03 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
|
2014-01-22
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] As noted by Scott in his OPS-DIR review: I do note that the ID does not actually say why a reorganization id a … [Ballot comment] As noted by Scott in his OPS-DIR review: I do note that the ID does not actually say why a reorganization id a good thing to do. It might be good to add a sentence or two to explain the advantages of this work. |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2014-01-21
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2014-01-20
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2014-01-20
|
03 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
|
2014-01-20
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point: Updates: RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing Given that … [Ballot discuss] My aim is to vote yes, but I think that it is worth discussing the following point: Updates: RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing Given that these texts are in the RFC Editor's queue, albeit about to be released by a blocking reference, it would be clearer to the reader if we were to modify the IANA section directly using an RFC Editor's note and remove the update that this RFC proposes. Given that the shepherd and the AD are the same for all three drafts this should be straightforward to address. In addressing this the note about changing the references should also be addressed. |
|
2014-01-20
|
03 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
|
2014-01-17
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
|
2014-01-17
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2014-01-17
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2014-01-17
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2014-01-17
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2014-01-17
|
03 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2014-01-17) |
|
2014-01-16
|
03 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. |
|
2014-01-15
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2014-01-15
|
03 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here]. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, if approved, the current document provides a detailed series of instructions which include: - the creation of a "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" name space which will bring together G-ACh registries from a variety of locations in the IANA matrix ( http://www.iana.org/protocols ); - the renaming of the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" registry to "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry; - registrations from the following RFC and Internet-Drafts are now moved into the new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" name space. With the exception of one registry, the registries reference by these RFC are to be moved into the new G-ACh registry. IANA understands that the entire document is a set of instructions for creation and maintenance of registries. Upon approval of this document, IANA will execute these instructions and, where necessary, consult with the authors while doing so. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
|
2014-01-12
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-23 |
|
2014-01-09
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Bradner. |
|
2014-01-09
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn |
|
2014-01-09
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Scott Bradner |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | 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-moving-iana-registries-03.txt> (Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry' <draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-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 2014-01-17. 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 RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh. However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries. This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" heading. This document updates RFC 5586. This document also updates RFC 6374, RFC 6428, RFC 6378, RFC 6427, RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, and RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2014-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2013-12-30
|
03 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-03.txt |
|
2013-12-30
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | AD review ====== Loa and Carlos, Thanks for this piece of housekeeping. I think we need to be crystal clear so that IANA can easily … AD review ====== Loa and Carlos, Thanks for this piece of housekeeping. I think we need to be crystal clear so that IANA can easily get this right, and I struggled a bit in 2.2. and 2.3 with the difference between "registry" and "registration". I think that *everything* that you describe is a "registry" (or possibly "sub-registry") and nothing you reference is a "registration". Can you tidy that up and I will issue the IETF last call. Thanks, Adrian PS Well done getting Amanda to review the content early. |
|
2013-12-30
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2013-12-30
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | (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? Proposed Standard. "Standards Track" is indicated on the title page. (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 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-Ach. However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries. This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" heading. This document updates RFC 5586. This document also updates RFC 6374, RFC 6428, RFC 6378, RFC 6427, RFC-ietf-mpls-gach-adv, and RFC-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing. Working Group Summary There is solid WG consensus to progress this document. Document Quality This document has been carefully reviewed by the MPLS WG. It does not define a protocol and thus cannot be implemented, other than by creating a well organized IANA registry. Personnel Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The document shepherd has read the document, has checked the updates based on last call comments, and has checked IDnits. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? no concerns. (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? 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 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. The authors have confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR has been filed that references 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? Solid consensus. (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 threats, no indication of discontent. (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 ID nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review needed. IANA reviews documents as part of the normal process following publication request. (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 two references to Internet Drafts. (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. All normative references are to standards track documents. (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. This document updates the IANA section of seven other documents, all of which are listed on the cover page, discussed in the abstract and introduction, and listed as normative references. (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). The IANA considerations is the entire point of 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. draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries creates a new registry that is a home to contain other existing registries. The allocation procedure for these existing registries remains the same as before. (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 such section. |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | State Change Notice email list changed to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries@tools.ietf.org |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
|
2013-12-23
|
02 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2013-12-22
|
02 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-02.txt |
|
2013-12-20
|
01 | Carlos Pignataro | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-01.txt |
|
2013-12-04
|
00 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2013-09-23
|
00 | Ross Callon | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2013-09-23
|
00 | Ross Callon | Document shepherd changed to Ross Callon |
|
2013-09-23
|
00 | Loa Andersson | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-moving-iana-registries-00.txt |