Skip to main content

Multicast Control Extensions for the Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)
draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-16

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>,
    ancp mailing list <ancp@ietf.org>,
    ancp chair <ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-16.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP'
  (draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-16.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Access Node Control Protocol Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ted Lemon and Brian Haberman.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary:

This document specifies the extensions to the Access Node Control
   Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in
   the Access Node Control Protocol framework document and one
   additional use case described in this document.  These use cases are
   organized into the following ANCP capabilities:

   o  NAS-initiated multicast replication;

   o  conditional access with white and black lists;

   o  conditional access with grey lists;

   o  bandwidth delegation;

   o  committed bandwidth reporting.

   These capabilities may be combined according to the rules given in
   this specification.


Working Group Summary:

The document specifies a solution to a set of multicast use cases for 
ANCP. These use cases are largely specified in RFC5851. That framework 
draft also contains use cases for the base ANCP protocol, which is 
specified in RFC6320. The multicast solution was split from the other 
use case solutions that were eventually published in RFC6320 because, at 
the time, it was felt that the multicast solution needed further 
development and review. 


Document Quality:

There are no concerns with document quality. It is believed that there 
is at least one implementation of the protocol extensions described in 
the draft, and it has had significant review and refinement over a 
number of years. 

There are no formal review criteria. 


Personnel:

Matthew Bocci is the document shepherd.
Ted Lemon is the responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note