Media Access Control (MAC) Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire
draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd-03

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: db3546@att.com, agmalis@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd-03.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire'
  (draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd-03.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah
Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

  This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal
   notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH).  Such notification is
   useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS
   environment.
 
Working Group Summary

This draft was previously in the L2VPN WG before being moved to the PALS WG.
It was a typical draft, with most of the technical comments being made as it
progressed through several revisions as an individual draft. As a result, it was in
pretty good shape when it reached PALS WG LC. Both PALS chairs reviewed the
draft in detail and provided comments, which were addressed by the authors prior
to IESG submission.

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?

As noted above, both PALS chairs reviewed the draft in detail and
provided comments, which have been addressed. The chairs are
aware of at least one implementation in active use, and there may
be others as well.

Personnel

 Andy Malis, Deborah Brungard.

RFC Editor Note