Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
Announcement
Ballot Text
Technical Summary
Traffic Engineered P2MP MPLS and GMPLS TE LSPs are setup by
signaling procedures defined in RFC4875. RFC4875 leaves several
issues open when it comes to P2MP-TE LSP in inter-domain networks.
One such issue is the computation of a loosely routed inter-domain
P2MP-TE LSP when there is a requirement that they should not
re-merge, i.e. the paths should be "re-merge free". A second
issue is reoptimization of the inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree vs.
individual destinations. The ingress border node for a P2MP TE-LSP
that is loosely set is not aware of the of the scope of
reoptimization. This document defines the protocol extensions
needed to establish and reoptimize P2MP MPLS and GMPLS TE LSPs
that crosses more that one domain.
Working Group Summary
There is a strong support for this document in the working group
and it has been has been well reviewed.
However, this document has had an unusual way up to the
publication request.
The draft has been around since 2008, and had 10 versions
before it was adopted as a working group document. The chairs have
on an off considered that the activity around this document has
been a bit too low. The chairs poked several time to find out
if there is interest to continue progressing the draft - the
result has been a steady trickle of more co-authors, and responses
from operators that there is interest to have the issue
raised in the document solved.
This was one of the first documents we took through an "MPLS
Review Team" review, before adopting it as a working group document.
One of the points brought up was that we had not seen any operator
support for the draft; when this was pointed out it resulted in two
operators joining as co-authors.
Since the document was early through the MPLS-RT review, and we
did not have the processes sorted not everything was exposed
on the mailing list.
During the poll for adoption we had a huge for support of adopting
it as a working group document. Version -01 took care of the
comments made during the adoption poll; all the commenters have
confirmed that they are comfortable with the updates.
When we did the working group last call there were no comments.
The WG co-chairs were uncertain whether we should interpret this as
"lack of interest" or "support". The document shepherd did an
off-line poll a set of operators on how to interpret the
"no-responses". The feedback was that there is a clear operator
interest for the draft.
Document Quality
We know one implementation and the implementation poll is
open on the working group mailing list. If there are more useful
Information the shepherd write-up will be updated.
Personnel
Loa Andersson is the document shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the responsible AD.
RFC Editor Note
(Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)
IRTF Note
(Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)
IESG Note
(Insert IESG Note here or remove section)
IANA Note
(Insert IANA Note here or remove section)