Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
RFC 8277
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-10-19
|
04 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8277, changed abstract to 'This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8277, changed abstract to 'This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s) and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107.', changed pages to 23, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2017-10-19, changed IESG state to RFC Published, created obsoletes relation between draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis and RFC 3107) |
|
2017-10-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2017-10-13
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8277">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2017-09-27
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8277">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2017-09-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2017-08-24
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2017-08-22
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2017-08-18
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2017-08-18
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-04.txt |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> |
|
2017-08-17
|
04 | Eric Rosen | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-08-17
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Thank you for working to address my DISCUSS. In Section 2.3: 0 … [Ballot comment] Thank you for working to address my DISCUSS. In Section 2.3: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label |Rsrv |S~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Label |Rsrv |S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prefix ~ ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: NLRI With Multiple Labels - Length: The Length field consists of a single octet. It specifies the length in bits of the remainder of the NLRI field. I would like to double check that my math is correct. With SAFI=128 and AFI=2, assuming the prefix length of 192 bits, this will leave space for: (255-192)/24 = 2.625. So this configuration only allows for 2 labels to be included, right? |
|
2017-08-17
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2017-08-04
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
|
2017-08-04
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2017-08-04
|
03 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-03.txt |
|
2017-08-04
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-08-04
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> |
|
2017-08-04
|
03 | Eric Rosen | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-08-03
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] The security considerations section should at least mention that none of the tunnel methods provide encryption or authentication of those mentioned earlier in … [Ballot comment] The security considerations section should at least mention that none of the tunnel methods provide encryption or authentication of those mentioned earlier in the document (Section 4: LSP, IP, GRE, & UDP). Although this isn't listed as a discuss, I'd appreciate the comment being addressed with an update to the text (1-2 sentences at most). Thank you. |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt S 2.1 I note that you use 255 to mean "any number of labels" and 0 is marked ignore. Is there … [Ballot comment] Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt S 2.1 I note that you use 255 to mean "any number of labels" and 0 is marked ignore. Is there a reason not to use 255 as a concrete number and 0 to mean "any number"? This is just for my information. S 2.3. Note that failure to set the S bit in the last label will make it impossible to parse the NLRI correctly. See Section 3 paragraph j of [RFC7606] for a discussion of error handling when the NLRI cannot be parsed. It would be helpful if you explicitly said that you parse this value by reading labels one at a time until you get a non-zero S bit. It's implicity, but having it be clear would be nice. |
|
2017-08-02
|
02 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
|
2017-08-01
|
02 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2017-08-01
|
02 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
|
2017-08-01
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] I would like to discuss one issue before recommending approval of this document: In Section 2.1: The value field of the Multiple … [Ballot discuss] I would like to discuss one issue before recommending approval of this document: In Section 2.1: The value field of the Multiple Labels Capability (shown in Figure 1) consists of one or more triples, where each triple consists of four octets. The first two octets of a triple specify an AFI value, the third octet specifies a SAFI value, and the fourth specifies a Count. If one of the triples is <AFI,SAFI,Count>, the Count is the maximum number of labels that the BGP speaker sending the Capability can process in a received UPDATE of the specified AFI/SAFI. I think lack of recommendations on the minimal supported Count value will result in lack of interoperability. What are the common Count values used by implementations? |
|
2017-08-01
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] In Section 2.3: 0 1 … [Ballot comment] In Section 2.3: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label |Rsrv |S~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Label |Rsrv |S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Prefix ~ ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: NLRI With Multiple Labels - Length: The Length field consists of a single octet. It specifies the length in bits of the remainder of the NLRI field. I would like to double check that my math is correct. With SAFI=128 and AFI=2, assuming the prefix length of 192 bits, this will leave space for: (255-192)/24 = 2.625. So this configuration only allows for 2 labels to be included, right? |
|
2017-08-01
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
|
2017-07-31
|
02 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2017-07-24
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2017-07-24
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
|
2017-07-24
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
|
2017-07-24
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2017-07-24
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2017-07-12
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2017-07-07
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-07-07
|
02 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, in the Capability Codes registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/ a new registration is to be made as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Description: Multiple Labels Capability Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, also in the Capability Codes registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/capability-codes/ Capability Code 4 ("Multiple routes to a destination") will be marked as deprecated. The reference will be changed from [RFC3107] to [ RFC-to-be ]. Third, in the SAFI Values registry on the Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/ the reference for SAFI 4 will be changed from [RFC3107] to [ RFC-to-be ]. In addition, the reference for SAFI value 128 will have [ RFC-to-be ] added to the existing reference. The IANA Services Operator understands that these three 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. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
|
2017-07-06
|
02 | Brian Carpenter | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list. |
|
2017-06-30
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
|
2017-06-30
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter |
|
2017-06-30
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
|
2017-06-30
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
|
2017-06-29
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
|
2017-06-29
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
|
2017-06-29
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga |
|
2017-06-29
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | 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: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls@ietf.org, … 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: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, loa@pi.nu Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt> (Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG (mpls) to consider the following document: - 'Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes' <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.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 2017-07-12. 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 a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels, organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s), and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-03 |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
|
2017-06-28
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2017-06-27
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
|
2017-05-30
|
02 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
|
2017-05-30
|
02 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
|
2017-05-30
|
02 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
|
2017-05-29
|
02 | Loa Andersson | The MPLS working reguest that Using BGP to Bind … The MPLS working reguest that Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02 is published as an RFC on the standards track (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? This document updates and specifies label distribution procedurs when usign BGP as the label distribution protocol. The document is an update of RFC 3107 (PS), the updated document needs to be the same type of document. We therefor request that the updated document is published as a Proposed Standard. The doucment header says "Standard Track". (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 3107 specifies encodings and procedures for using BGP to indicate that a particular router has bound either a single MPLS label or a sequence of MPLS labels to a particular address prefix. This is done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s), and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). Each such UPDATE also advertises a path to the specified prefix, via the specified next hop. Although there are many implementations and deployments of RFC3107, there are a number of issues with [RFC3107] that have impeded interoperability in the past, and may potentially impede interoperability in the future. This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 3107. It defines a new BGP Capability to be used when binding a sequence of labels to a prefix; by using this Capability, the interoperability problems alluded to above can be avoided. This document also removes the unimplemented "Advertising Multiple Routes to a Destination" feature, while specifying how to use RFC 7911 to provide the same functionality. This document also addresses the issue of the how UPDATEs that bind labels to a given prefix interact with UPDATEs that advertise paths to that prefix but do not bind labels to it. However, for backwards compatibility, it declares most of these interactions to be matters of local policy. Working Group Summary The MPLS working group does solidly support this doucment, it address wellknown interoperability problems. We had a good number of people supporting working group adoption and later (in the working last call) supporting publication. The document has also been eorking group last called in IDR and bess, the support from these groups are also strong. There has been no controversies around this upfate of RFC 3107, the 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? We know of several implementations of RFC 3107, thus a very good understanding of the interoperability problems. We also know of intents to implement the updated version. An implementation poll has been started, and as soon as we have new information this Shepherd Write-up as soon as the inforamtion changes. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson 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 draft was first posted as draft-rosen-idr-rfc3107bis, this draft was reviewed by idr, bess and mpls wg chairs and it was decided to progress the document in the mpls working group. Next it was by the shepherd prior to the working group poll and then once more before starting the the working group last call. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No such 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? If so, describe the review that took place. No such reviews needed. (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. All the authors has stated on the mpls working group mailing that they are not aware of any IPRs that relates 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. There are no IPRs disclosed against 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? This is an update of a well implemented document, we have been aware of the interop problems, and the wg fully support fixing these problens. (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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The document has been carefully checked for nits, no issues found. The document passes the nits tool clean, with the exception that a newer version of one of the informative reference has been posted. Normally we wait until the document is in the final states of the RFC Editor work, before finally synch this. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes, the references are corretly split in normative and informative references. (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? (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 the normative references are to existing RFCs. (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 will obsolete RFC 3107, this is listed on the front page, the abstract and the introduction. (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 registry has been reviewed by the shepherd several times since the document was accepted as a working group document and during working group last call. The IANA section is well and clearly written, and well aligned with the rest of the document. There are no new IANA registries defined 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 such formal checks required. |
|
2017-05-29
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2017-05-29
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2017-05-29
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2017-05-29
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2017-05-29
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed document writeup |
|
2017-05-25
|
02 | Loa Andersson | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2017-05-23
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Notification list changed to Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> |
|
2017-05-23
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Document shepherd changed to Loa Andersson |
|
2017-05-23
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2017-05-23
|
02 | Loa Andersson | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2017-05-11
|
02 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-02.txt |
|
2017-05-11
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-05-11
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-05-11
|
02 | Eric Rosen | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-04-27
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick. |
|
2017-04-24
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
|
2017-04-24
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick |
|
2017-04-04
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
|
2017-04-04
|
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
|
2017-04-04
|
01 | Loa Andersson | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
|
2017-03-13
|
01 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-01.txt |
|
2017-03-13
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-03-13
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Eric Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2017-03-13
|
01 | Eric Rosen | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-09-16
|
00 | Loa Andersson | This document now replaces draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis instead of None |
|
2016-09-16
|
00 | Eric Rosen | WG -00 approved |
|
2016-09-16
|
00 | Eric Rosen | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-09-16
|
00 | Eric Rosen | Set submitter to "Eric C. Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>", replaces to draft-rosen-mpls-rfc3107bis and sent approval email to group chairs: mpls-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2016-09-16
|
00 | Eric Rosen | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-00.txt |