Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
RFC 7759
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2016-02-22
|
16 | (System) | IANA registries were updated to include RFC7759 |
|
2016-02-18
|
16 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2016-02-17
|
16 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2016-02-14
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7759">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2016-02-01
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7759">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2016-01-20
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2015-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2015-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2015-12-07
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2015-12-06
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2015-11-29
|
16 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2015-11-29
|
16 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2015-11-29
|
16 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2015-11-26
|
16 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Eric Osterweil. |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-11-24
|
16 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
|
2015-11-23
|
16 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2015-11-23
|
16 | Greg Mirsky | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2015-11-23
|
16 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-16.txt |
|
2015-11-19
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2015-11-19
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2015-11-19
|
15 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] Mehmet Ersue performed the opsdir review. |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - 2.1.1, is there any chance of moving on from the "Keyed SHA1" from RFC5880 to e.g. HMAC-SHA256 for this? We're generally trying … [Ballot comment] - 2.1.1, is there any chance of moving on from the "Keyed SHA1" from RFC5880 to e.g. HMAC-SHA256 for this? We're generally trying to get that kind of transition done as we can and moving to use of a standard integrity check rather than a more home-grown one has some benefits. The HMAC-SHA1-like thing you're doing is still probably ok, (though could maybe do with crypto eyeballs on it as there may have been relevant new results since 2010) but future-proofing would suggest moving to HMAC-SHA256 if we can. (I can imagine such a change might require a new document, but am asking anyway:-) - 2.1.1, I'd recommend saying any password auth-type MUST NOT be used - would that be possible? - section 6 - what "established secure key-exchange protocol" is available to use here? - (this is sort of off-topic) I find an architecture like this where a packet traversing a network has quite so many side-effects a bit hard to grok. Do you have a pointer to something (not too long:-) that explains the consequences of that? |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2015-11-18
|
15 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
|
2015-11-17
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2015-11-17
|
15 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2015-11-17
|
15 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2015-11-17
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2015-11-16
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits: Comment: ========= - 4.1, paragraph 3: Is it reasonable for a TLV in … [Ballot comment] I have one minor (almost trivial) comment/question, and several nits: Comment: ========= - 4.1, paragraph 3: Is it reasonable for a TLV in this standards-action registry to be have sub-tlvs with reduced registration requirements? (And if so, is there a reason to exclude specifications that are not RFCs?) Nits: ==== -1, paragraph 1: Missing "the" before "MPLS Transport Profile " - 1.0, last paragraph, last two sentences: Who are “we” in these sentences? Does it make sense to talk about what “we” are or are not “configuring”? 2.1.1, first bullet in first list: consider s/"both sides should be"/"both sides are" -4.1, 2nd paragraph, first sentence: Missing words? (What is IANA requested to do with the TLV? I assume register it. Also, what is the name of the new TLV? Consider a cross-reference to table to for "this sub-registry" -4.2: "Assignments of bit positions 0 through 31" If I read correctly, that's all the bits. Is this the same as saying the registry itself requires standards-action? -5: It's mildly odd to find the acknowledgements section between two substantive sections. -6, first paragraph: Should "liveliness" be "liveness"? |
|
2015-11-16
|
15 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2015-11-16
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue. |
|
2015-11-16
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2015-11-13
|
15 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2015-11-12
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
|
2015-11-12
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
|
2015-11-01
|
15 | Greg Mirsky | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2015-11-01
|
15 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-15.txt |
|
2015-10-20
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.all@ietf.org |
|
2015-10-20
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2015-10-20
|
14 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. Upon … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are four actions which IANA must complete. First, in the TLV codepoint subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ a new TLV from the standards action range (0-16383). Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ] TLV Name: MPLS OAM Functions Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Sub-TLV Registry [ see below] Second, for the TLV created in step one above, a new subregistry will be created called "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type (type number from step 1, above). The reference for the Sub-TLV registry will be [ RFC-to-be ]. We understand that the registration procedures will be those outlined for TLVs and Sub-TLVs by RFC 4379. If this is not correct, please let us know. The new Sub-TLV registry will be populated as follows: +----------+----------------------------------+---------------+ | Sub-type | Sub-TLV Name | Reference | +----------+----------------------------------+---------------+ | 0-99 | Unassigned | 100 | BFD Configuration | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 101 | BFD Local Discriminator | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 102 | BFD Negotiation Timer Parameters | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 103 | BFD Authentication | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 104 | Traffic Class | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 105-199 | Unassigned | 200 | Performance Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 201 | PM Loss Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 202 | PM Delay Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 203-299 | Unassigned | 300 | Fault Management Signal | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 301-399 | Unassigned | 400 | Source MEP-ID | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 401-31743 | Unassigned | 31744-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | RFC-to-be | | 32768- 64511 | Unassigned | 64512-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | RFC-to-be | +----------+----------------------------------+---------------+ Third, IANA will create a registry called MPLS OAM Function Flags. This will be a subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ The new registry is to be maintained via Standards Action as defined in RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: | Bit Position | MPLS OAM Function Flag | Description | Reference | +---------+---------------------+----------+---------+ | 0 | C | Continuity Check (CC) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 1 | V | Connectivity Verification (CV) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 2 | F | Fault Management Signal (FMS) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 3 | L | Performance Measurement/Loss (PM/Loss) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 4 | D | Performance Measurement/Delay (PM/Delay) | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 5 | T | Throughput Measurement | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 6-30 | | Unassigned (Must be zero) | | | 31 | | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] | Fourth, in the Return Codes subregistry of the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ twelve new return codes are to be registered as follows: OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Version [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Encapsulation format OAM Problem/Unsupported BFD Authentication Type [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Mismatch of BFD Authentication Key ID [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Unsupported Timestamp Format [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Unsupported Delay Mode [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Unsupported Loss Mode [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Delay variation unsupported [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Dyadic mode unsupported [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Loopback mode unsupported [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Combined mode unsupported [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Fault management signaling unsupported [ RFC-to-be ] OAM Problem/Unable to create fault management association [ RFC-to-be ] IANA notes that the authors request that these values be from the Standards Action range (0-191). IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. 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. |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-11-19 |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2015-10-16
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2015-10-14
|
14 | (System) | Notify list changed from draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.ad@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2015-10-09
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
|
2015-10-09
|
14 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
|
2015-10-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
|
2015-10-08
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
|
2015-10-08
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Osterweil |
|
2015-10-08
|
14 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Osterweil |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | 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-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-14.txt> (Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using LSP Ping) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using LSP Ping' <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-14.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 2015-10-20. 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 This specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a given Label Switched Path (LSP) using a set of TLVs that are carried by the LSP-Ping protocol. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2015-10-06
|
14 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2015-10-05
|
14 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-14.txt |
|
2015-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | 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. (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 This specification describes the configuration of proactive MPLS-TP Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for a given Label Switched Path (LSP) using a set of TLVs that are carried by the LSP-Ping protocol. In particular it specifies the mechanisms necessary to establish MPLS-TP OAM entities at the maintenance points for monitoring and performing measurements on an LSP, as well as defining information elements and procedures to configure proactive MPLS-TP OAM functions running between LERs. Working Group Summary The WG process was smooth and without controversy. It was necessary to repeat the working group last call in order to ensure sufficient review and comment. Document Quality The document has been carefully reviewed and updated based on review and last call comments. There is also some related implementation work in progress. Personnel Ross Callon is the Document Shepherd. Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director. (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 document shepherd has read the document and sent comments to the author on at least two occasions, and the document has gone through two working group last calls with constructive comments both times. The shepherd has verified that WGLC and his comments have been addressed. (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 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 authors have confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR has been disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No IPR disclosures have been posted on the document (nor on the individual draft that preceded it). (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? Those who are interested are solidly in support of this draft. There does appear to be only a moderate amount of interest although authors include experts from multiple major vendors. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? no threats, no hints of any discontent. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. IDnits runs cleanly. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. not applicable. (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? All normative references are to 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. All normative references are to standards track RFCs. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? 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). The IANA considerations look complete and well done, and were updated based on shepherd comments and subsequent discussions among the authors. (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. none. (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. not applicable. |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | Ross Callon | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | Ross Callon | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | Ross Callon | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | Ross Callon | Notification list changed to draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.ad@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org from draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.ad@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2015-09-03
|
12 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-09-03
|
13 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-13.txt |
|
2015-09-02
|
12 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-12.txt |
|
2015-08-31
|
11 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-08-31
|
11 | Ross Callon | Changed document writeup |
|
2015-08-31
|
11 | Ross Callon | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
|
2015-08-24
|
11 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-11.txt |
|
2015-08-19
|
10 | Ross Callon | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
|
2015-08-19
|
10 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2015-08-16
|
10 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2015-07-31
|
10 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-10.txt |
|
2015-04-05
|
09 | Ross Callon | WGLC was not successful due to insufficient response. |
|
2015-04-05
|
09 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
|
2015-03-10
|
09 | Ross Callon | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2015-02-16
|
09 | Ross Callon | Notification list changed to mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.ad@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org from mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.ad@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.shepherd@ietf.org, rcallon@juniper.net |
|
2015-02-16
|
09 | Ross Callon | Notification list changed to mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.ad@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf.shepherd@ietf.org, rcallon@juniper.net from "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> |
|
2015-02-16
|
09 | Ross Callon | IPR poll issued prior to WGLC. |
|
2015-02-16
|
09 | Ross Callon | Notification list changed to "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> |
|
2015-02-16
|
09 | Ross Callon | Document shepherd changed to Ross Callon |
|
2015-01-26
|
09 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-09.txt |
|
2015-01-11
|
08 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-08.txt |
|
2014-10-08
|
07 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2014-10-08
|
07 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Dead WG Document |
|
2014-09-30
|
07 | Greg Mirsky | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-07.txt |
|
2013-09-05
|
06 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Dead WG Document from WG Document |
|
2013-02-21
|
06 | Pontus Skoldstrom | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-06.txt |
|
2013-01-10
|
05 | Pontus Skoldstrom | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-05.txt |
|
2012-04-13
|
04 | Elisa Bellagamba | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-04.txt |
|
2011-10-31
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-03.txt |
|
2011-07-11
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-02.txt |
|
2011-03-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-01.txt |
|
2010-12-13
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-00.txt |