Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-06

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: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    pwe3 mailing list <pwe3@ietf.org>,
    pwe3 chair <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires'
  (draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) setup through an explicit
   path may be required to provide a simple solution for 1:1 protection
   with diverse primary and backup MS-PWs for a service, or to enable
   controlled signaling (strict or loose) for special MS-PWs.  This
   document specifies the extensions and procedures required to enable
   dynamic MS-PWs to be established along explicit paths.
   Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
   and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be 
   an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
   or introduction.

Working Group Summary

   The document has been held up in the working group for a while because it is
   dependent on draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, which is currently in the RFC Editor's
   queue (draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er was split out from that draft in 2011). We kept this
   draft in the WG until draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw reached the RFC Editor in case
   any changes were made during WG LC, IETF LC, or IESG deliberation that might
   result in changes to this draft. As it turned out, no such changes were needed.

Document Quality:

   There is at least one publicly known, shipping implementation of this draft (ALU). The
   document text has been stable for quite some time, other than a few recent changes
   made as a result of the shepherd's review.

Personnel:

   Andrew Malis (agmalis@gmail.com) is the Document Shepherd
   Adrian Farrel (Adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note