| 2012-09-12 |
Sep 2012 Interim |
There appears to be no conflict given the introduction “unless stated otherwise” and the suggested conflict falls into this case. The action definitions are part of the state machine.
Mick Seaman will review the MRP set and report back on recommendation |
Technical experts review |
|
| 2012-11-13 |
Nov 2012 Planery |
Review by Mick Seaman in progress. |
Technical experts review |
|
| 2013-01-15 |
Jan 2013 Interim |
Agree. The offending (clearly wrong) text about transmitting only if the Port was in a Forwarding state was the result of incorrectly accepting a ballot comment at some stage in the process. It is very clear that if the MAP Context no longer provides connectivity between points A and B and an attribute registration was previously being forwarded from A to B, then the registration has to be explicitly withdrawn by B sending a Leave (or some equivalent action).
Include in 802.1Q-REV |
Ready for Ballot |
|
| 2013-03-19 |
Mar 2013 Plenary |
Q-REV draft prepared. Ready for WG ballot |
Ready for Ballot |
|
| 2013-05-15 |
May 2013 Interim |
Included in 802.1Q-REV D1.0, in ballot
|
Balloting |
|
| 2013-07-15 |
Jul 2013 Plenary |
802.1Q-REV D1.2 is balloting |
Balloting |
|
| 2013-09-03 |
Sep 2013 Interim |
802.1Q-REV is in WG ballot recirc |
Balloting |
|
| 2013-11-12 |
Nov 2013 Plenary |
802.1Q-REV is in WG ballot recirc |
Balloting |
|
| 2014-01-22 |
Jan 2014 Plenary |
802.1Q-REV is in sponsor ballot |
Balloting |
|
| 2014-03-18 |
Mar 2014 Plenary |
802.1Q-REV is in sponsor ballot recirc |
Balloting |
|