EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13

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-evpn-mh-pa@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode'
  (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) technology enables
   establishing a logical link-aggregation connection with a redundant
   group of independent nodes.  The objective of MC-LAG is to enhance
   both network availability and bandwidth utilization through various
   modes of traffic load-balancing.  RFC7432 defines EVPN-based MC-LAG
   with Single-active and All-active multi-homing redundancy modes.
   This document builds on the existing redundancy mechanisms supported
   by EVPN and introduces a new Port-Active redundancy mode.

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? 

There is a strong consensus and support from multiple vendors.
There has been no controversy during WG consensus building. 


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?

Shepherd report indicates that implementation exists.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephane Litkowski. The
   Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

  IANA OK - Actions Needed

RFC Editor Note