BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-37

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>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-37.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks'
  (draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-37.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS 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-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP as the
   control plane for multiple SD-WAN scenarios. The document aims to
   demonstrate how the BGP-based control plane is used for large-scale
   SD-WAN overlay networks with little manual intervention.

   SD-WAN edge nodes are commonly interconnected by multiple types of
   underlay networks owned and managed by different network providers.

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? 

While the working group reached consensus with no significant issues, a technical error identified during the prior IESG ballot required the document to be returned to the WG. The WG has since addressed the IESG feedback and produced an updated, improved version of the document.


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?

All review edits requested have been implemented to improve document quality.
Directorate feedbacks have also been considered.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Matthew Bocci. The
   Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

RFC Editor Note