Multi-Threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Routing Information Export Format with Geo-Location Extensions
draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07

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>,
    grow mailing list <grow@ietf.org>,
    grow chair <grow-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing information export format with geo-location extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Multi-threaded Routing Toolkit (MRT) Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
   routing information export format with geo-location extensions'
  (draft-ietf-grow-geomrt-07.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Global Routing Operations Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-geomrt/

Ballot Text

     Technical Summary
        "This document extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) MRT export
         format for routing information to include terrestrial coordinates."

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

        Nothing worth noting.

     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?

       I don't believe there are implementations already in existence, this draft would
       extend existing MRT implementations, however.

Personell

       Chris Morrow is shepherd for this draft.

RFC Editor Note