Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-22

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    pwe3 mailing list <pwe3@ietf.org>,
    pwe3 chair <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-22.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires'
  (draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-22.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw/


Technical Summary

   RFC5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending the
   reach of pseudowires (PW) across multiple Packet Switched Network
   domains. A Multi-Segment PW is defined as a set of two or more
   contiguous PW segments that behave and function as a single point-
   to-point PW. This document describes extensions to the PW control
   protocol to dynamically place the segments of the multi-segment
   pseudowire among a set of Provider Edge (PE) routers. This document
   also updates RFC6073 as follows: it updates the value of the length 
   field of the PW Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14.


Working Group Summary

   The working group process was pretty straightforward, though 
   sometimes a bit slow since it has been waiting for completion of 
   other documents. Several individual proposals were intiially sent 
   to the PWE3 group to  suggest solutions to the Dynamic MS-PW space. 
   The working group requested that they were merged into a single 
   document. This document were accepted as a working group 
   document. To the shepherd's knowledge,  there is no dissent 
   regarding the final version of thedocument.

Document Quality

    The document is well reviewed and the shepherd has no concerns
    about the level of review.

   The working group mailing list has been polled about implementations
   of this draft.
    
   We know existing implementations of this draft, and we know 
   of further vendors that has stated that they will implement the
   draft. We also have indications that the implementations have 
   been deployed. 

Personnel

  Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd

  Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD 

RFC Editor Note

  The RFC editor will want to discuss with the document editors which
   names to include in the Authors' Addresses section