Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy
draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mmcbride7@gmail.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint Policy'
  (draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Protocols for IP Multicast Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan
Talaulikar.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) policy enables creation of P2MP trees for
   efficient multi-point packet delivery in a Segment Routing (SR)
   domain.  A SR P2MP Policy consists of Candidate Paths (CP) which
   define the topology of P2MP tree instances in each Candidate Path.  A
   P2MP tree instance is instantiated by a set of Replication segments.

   This document specifies the architecture, signaling, and procedures
   for SR P2MP Policies within Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and
   Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) dataplane.  It defines the P2MP
   Policy construct, the roles of the root and leaf nodes, Candidate
   Paths and and how P2MP trees using Replication Segments are
   instantiated and maintained.  Additionally, it describes the required
   extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) to support P2MP path
   computation and provisioning.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

No specific difficult issues observed

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?

There is a implementation.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Mike McBride. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

  
   No requirements for IANA

RFC Editor Note