Skip to main content

Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute
draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14

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-mofrr-tilfa@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, stig@venaas.com
Subject: Document Action: 'Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology Independent Loop-free
   Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute'
  (draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14.txt) as Informational 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-mofrr-tilfa/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies the use of Topology Independent Loop-Free
   Alternate (TI-LFA) mechanisms with Multicast Only Fast ReRoute
   (MoFRR) for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM). TI-LFA provides
   fast reroute protection for unicast traffic in IP networks by
   precomputing backup paths that avoid potential failures. By
   integrating TI-LFA with MoFRR, this document extends the benefits of
   fast reroute mechanisms to multicast traffic, enabling enhanced
   resilience and minimized packet loss in multicast networks. The
   document outlines the necessary protocol extensions and operational
   considerations to implement TI-LFA in conjunction with MoFRR for
   PIM, ensuring that multicast traffic is rapidly rerouted in the
   event of a failure.

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? 

No special observations to mention. There was broad agreement. Good support for the document, no one against it.

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?

Nothing special observations that need mentioning.
Due to a very late technical findings the document rerun IETF LC and IESG ballot

Personnel

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

RFC Editor Note