Skip to main content

Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) MIB
RFC 7784

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-02-29
11 (System) RFC published
2016-02-25
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-02-10
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-01-29
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2016-01-22
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2015-12-31
11 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-10-21
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-10-20
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2015-10-20
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2015-10-20
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-10-20
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-10-19
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-10-19
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-10-19
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-10-19
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-10-19
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-10-19
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-10-19
11 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2015-10-15
11 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2015-10-14
11 (System) Notify list changed from d3e3e3@gmail.com, trill-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-10-12
11 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-11.txt
2015-10-07
10 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-10.txt
2015-09-29
09 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-09.txt
2015-08-25
08 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Susan Hares.
2015-08-25
08 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2015-08-25
08 Jonathan Hardwick Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Susan Hares
2015-08-23
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Melinda Shore.
2015-08-23
08 Deepak Kumar IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-08-23
08 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-08.txt
2015-08-20
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-08-19
07 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
Melinda Shore did the opsdir review. would like to see the question of the security considerations setion addressed.

----

I have reviewed this …
[Ballot comment]
Melinda Shore did the opsdir review. would like to see the question of the security considerations setion addressed.

----

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

Summary:  The document is in good basic shape, with some
weaknesses in the security considerations.  I'd like to
see those remedied but I'm not sure they're serious enough
to recommend blocking publication.

This document specifies a MIB for TRILL.
This document has been received MIB doctor review and
issues raised during that review have been been resolved.

The security considerations section is weak, but not
fatally so.  The draft identifies exposing MAC addresses as a
potential privacy issue but does not identify other security
considerations specific to this particular MIB module, which
is unfortunate given the inclusion of writable objects.  More
specificity about which security mechanisms to use might help
avoid interoperability problems.  Also, in this climate it may
be useful to separate out the privacy issues into a "Privacy
Considerations" subsection.

The nits checker found:
  . two instances of non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
  . a missing reference to CFM.  This one is wrong - CFM
    is identified and a reference provided in the Introduction
    (section 1)

Melinda
2015-08-19
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-08-19
07 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-08-19
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-08-19
07 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
Weird that this document uses the old template, with Status of this Memo as the first section.

I would suggest doing a pass …
[Ballot comment]
Weird that this document uses the old template, with Status of this Memo as the first section.

I would suggest doing a pass of this whole document to clean up the English before it goes to the RFC Editor, as there are enough places where the grammar is ambiguous that it would be better not to have the RFC Editor try to interpret them all. Some examples of issues that seem to occur throughout the document:

Missing articles (e.g. Sec 5.3, "trilloamNotifications are sent to management entity")

Inconsistent capitalization (e.g. in the definition of trillOamMepTxLbmReplyModeOob, "True Indicates that Reply of Lbm")

Subject-verb agreement problems (e.g., in the definition of trillOamMepTxMtvmMessages, "Rbridge retransmit the Multi Destination message")

Ambiguous text (e.g., in the definition of trillOamMepTxPtmMessages,  "Once Destination or Hop count reaches it's treated as single Counter increment of this object")
2015-08-19
07 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-08-19
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-08-19
07 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-08-19
07 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- Grepping for "MAX-ACCESS *read-create" gives me 28 hits.  The
security considerations section describes 5 of those that I
can see. Are you …
[Ballot comment]

- Grepping for "MAX-ACCESS *read-create" gives me 28 hits.  The
security considerations section describes 5 of those that I
can see. Are you saying that you did check but all of the
others are read-create are not in fact sensitive?

- The security considerations here might note two additional
things. First, access to the read-only date exposes the network
topology so might be considered more sensitive than other MIBs.
And second, if one can set an IP address to which reports are
sent say in the event of some kind of packet storm, then that
could maybe be used to DoS that IP address.  I'm not sure
either is worth a mention, but just wanted to check in case
they might be.
2015-08-19
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-08-18
07 Deepak Kumar IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-08-18
07 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-07.txt
2015-08-18
06 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-08-18
06 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-08-18
06 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thanks for the updated Security Considerations in the SecDir review, that update will address my concerns.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05934.html
2015-08-18
06 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-08-17
06 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
A few nits:

-- section 3:
s/is intended to provide/provides  ; (Unless you are concerned that it did not succeed?

Please expand OAM …
[Ballot comment]
A few nits:

-- section 3:
s/is intended to provide/provides  ; (Unless you are concerned that it did not succeed?

Please expand OAM on first mention.

-- 5.3.1:
s/fault alarm/fault alarms

-- 6 (title)
s/module/modules

-- 6, first paragraph, "relevant to TRILL OAM MIB"
missing article

-- 6.1, first paragraph:
Is there a reason to capitalize "Augments" and "Augmenting"?

--6.1, 2nd paragraph:
I have trouble parsing this paragraph. Do you mean some implementations do not support
Link Trace Messages? All implementations? The TRILL standard?

I suggest the latter part of the sentence be “statistics for these messages
should have default values as per…"
2015-08-17
06 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-08-17
06 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-08-17
06 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-08-14
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-08-13
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Yoav Nir.
2015-08-13
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-08-06
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2015-08-06
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Melinda Shore
2015-08-06
06 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to David Black was rejected
2015-08-06
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir
2015-08-06
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir
2015-08-04
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-08-04
06 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

IANA understands …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06. Please report any inaccuracies as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIB sub-registry of the Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new mib-2 number will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: trillOamMIB
Description: TRILL-OAM-MIB
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

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.
2015-08-03
06 Alia Atlas Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-08-03
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-08-03
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to David Black
2015-07-30
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-07-30
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-07-30
06 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-07-30
06 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL OAM MIB) to Proposed …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL OAM MIB) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document:
- 'TRILL OAM MIB'
  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 2015-08-13. 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 document specifies the Management Information Base (MIB) for the
  IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM
  objects.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-07-30
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Ballot has been issued
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Created "Approve" ballot
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was changed
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-08-20
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Last call was requested
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Last call announcement was generated
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Ballot approval text was generated
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas Ballot writeup was generated
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2015-07-30
06 Alia Atlas IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Expert Review
2015-07-19
06 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06.txt
2015-06-30
05 Donald Eastlake
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
   
Proposed Standard as indicsted …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
   
Proposed Standard as indicsted 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:

This document specifies the Management Information Base (MIB) for the
IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM objects.

  Working Group Summary:

WG process on this draft was unremarkable. Given the people are mostly
not that interested in MIBs, there was good support for adoption, at
least one thorough technical review, but no comments during WG LC.

  Document Quality:

The document has been reviewed multiple times and is of good quality.

  Personnel:
    Document Shepherd:  Donald Eastlake, 3rd
    Responsible Area Director:  Alia Atlas

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
    by the Document Shepherd.

The Shepherd read the document and the resulting review comments which
have been resolved in the draft were posted here
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06518.html.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Now that this document has had MIB Doctor review, I do not believe
further formal review is required..

(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?

It has received the required MIB Doctor review and the MIB Doctor's
comments have been resolved.

(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.

This is an important document. No specific concerns other than that
directorate review is needed as indicated above.

(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.

(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 disclosures.

(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?

There was good support for the adoption of this document. Not that
many people are interested in MIBs so it is not surprising that there
were no last call comments other than the Shepherd's.

(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.

No.

(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.

Nits found earlier by the Shepherd have been fixed. The only remaining
things found by the nits checker are an apparent reference that is
actually inside the MIB.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

MIB Doctor review has been done and all comments resolved.

(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?

No.

(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.

(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.

The only IANA action is the allocation of an OID for the TRILL OAM
MIB.

(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 registries are created.

(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.

The Shephard did not complete any automated validations.
2015-06-30
05 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-05.txt
2015-06-26
04 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-04.txt
2015-04-04
03 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-03.txt
2015-03-25
02 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Alia Atlas
2015-01-23
02 Ted Lemon IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2015-01-05
02 Susan Hares
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
   
Proposed Standard as indicsted …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
   
Proposed Standard as indicsted 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:

This document specifies the Management Information Base (MIB) for the
IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) OAM objects.

  Working Group Summary:

WG process on this draft was unremarkable. Given the people are mostly
not that interested in MIBs, there was good support for adoption, at
least one thorough technical review, but no comments during WG LC.

  Document Quality:

The document is of good quality.

  Personnel:
    Document Shepherd:  Donald Eastlake, 3rd
    Responsible Area Director:  Ted Lemon

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
    by the Document Shepherd.

The Shepherd read the document and the resulting review comments which
have been resolved in the draft were posted here
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/current/msg06518.html.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

This document still needs MIB Doctor and perhaps OPS Directorate
review.

(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?

Needs MIB Doctor and perhaps OPS Directorate review.

(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.

This is an important document. No specific concerns other than that
directorate review is needed as indicated above.

(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.

(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 disclosures.

(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?

There was good support for the adoption of this document. Not that
many people are interested in MIBs so it is not that surprising that
there were no last call comments other than the Shepherd's.

(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.

No.

(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.

Nits found earlier by the Shepherd have been fixed. The only remaining
things found by the nits checker are an apparent reference that is
actually inside the MIB code and one very trivial typo, a random
double space on page 9, that does not seem worth spinning a new
version to fix.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

MIB Doctor review still required.

(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 is a reference to draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm ([TRILL-FM]) which is
in the RFC Editor's queue.

(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.

(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.

The only IANA action is the allocation of an OID for the TRILL OAM
MIB.

(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 registries are created.

(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.

The Shephard did not complete any automatic validations.
2015-01-05
02 Susan Hares State Change Notice email list changed to d3e3e3@gmail.com, draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, trill-chairs@tools.ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
2015-01-05
02 Susan Hares Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon
2015-01-05
02 Susan Hares IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-01-05
02 Susan Hares IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-01-05
02 Susan Hares IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2014-12-22
02 Donald Eastlake Changed document writeup
2014-12-22
02 Donald Eastlake IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2014-12-18
02 Donald Eastlake Changed document writeup
2014-12-12
02 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-02.txt
2014-11-23
01 Donald Eastlake Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2014-11-23
01 Donald Eastlake IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-09-08
01 Donald Eastlake Document shepherd changed to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
2014-07-26
01 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-01.txt
2014-01-28
00 Donald Eastlake This document now replaces draft-deepak-trill-oam-mib instead of None
2014-01-15
00 Deepak Kumar New version available: draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-00.txt