Group Address Allocation Protocol (GAAP)
draft-ietf-pim-gaap-24

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-pim-gaap@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, stig@venaas.com
Subject: Document Action: 'Group Address Allocation Protocol (GAAP)' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-pim-gaap-18.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Group Address Allocation Protocol (GAAP)'
  (draft-ietf-pim-gaap-18.txt) as Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the Protocols for IP Multicast 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-pim-gaap/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes a design for a lightweight decentralized
   multicast group address allocation protocol (named GAAP and
   pronounced "gap" as in "mind the gap").  The base allocation protocol
   requires no centralized service and minimal configuration, although
   deployments using encryption or administrative scoping may require
   configuration.  The protocol runs among group participants which need
   a unique group address to send and receive multicast packets.
   Tailored for IPv4 and IPv6 networks, this design offers a simple,
   lightweight option rather than extending an existing protocol.

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 was interest in the technology by more than a few in the WG, but majority of WG fairly silent. 
A major observation is that the document requests allocations of big blocks (a /10 for IPv4, a /32 group-ID block for IPv6) that needs to be done by IETF, and not a regular IANA allocation.

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?

There is an open source implementation referenced in the document.
IANA registered port number is preferable, however based upon https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-multicast-application-port/ the IANA expert advised against such registration. The authors decided that registration s beneficial for the technology and requested the registration to be made anyway.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Stig Venaas. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

  Issues identified

RFC Editor Note