Updates to Dynamic IPv6 Multicast Address Group IDs
draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id-13

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-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, pim-chairs@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, stig@venaas.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Updates to Dynamic IPv6 Multicast Address Group IDs' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Updates to Dynamic IPv6 Multicast Address Group IDs'
  (draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id-13.txt) as Proposed Standard

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-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Describes limitations of the existing range of dynamic IPv6 multicast
   addresses specified in RFC3307.  Recommends replacing these
   allocations with a new registry in the IPv6 Multicast Address Space
   Registry registry group.  Suggests initial contents of the new
   registry: a reduced allocation for MADCAP (RFC2730), a Private Use
   range, and Solicited-Node multicast addresses (which were not
   previously noted in RFC3307).

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? 

Majority of the working group is silent, but believe most of the WG silently
support it. No one is against.

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 to implement.

Personnel

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

IANA Note

  Prior version had: IANA OK - Actions Needed

RFC Editor Note