Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering over Layer 2 Bundle Members
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-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: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, shares@ndzh.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering over Layer 2 Bundle Members' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering over Layer 2 Bundle
   Members'
  (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Inter-Domain Routing 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-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes how to support Segment Routing BGP Egress
   Peer Engineering over Layer 2 bundle members.  It updates RFC 9085 to
   allow the L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV in the BGP-LS Attribute of
   the BGP-LS Link NLRI for a BGP peering link.  For SR-MPLS, it updates
   RFC 9085 and RFC 9086 to allow the PeerAdj SID TLV as a sub-TLV of
   the L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV.

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? 

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?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Susan Hares. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note