PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast
draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09

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-jp-extensions-lisp@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, mmcbride7@gmail.com, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay
   Multicast'
  (draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09.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 John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies an update to the PIM Receiver RLOC Join/Prune
   attribute that supports the construction of multicast distribution
   trees where the source and receivers are located in different
   Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) sites and are connected using
   underlay IP Multicast.  This attribute allows the receiver site to
   signal the underlay multicast group to the control plane of the root
   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR).  This document updates RFC 8059.

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 has been no controversies and no opposition. 
There has been within pim wg broad agreement to support this draft. The lisp wg was also
included in the wglc and also showed support.

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?

Authors have implemented this draft in one of the Cisco NOS (IOS-XE).

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Mike McBride. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

  No new requests to IANA

RFC Editor Note