Cisco Systems' Private VLANs: Scalable Security in a Multi-Client Environment
draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: 
         draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10.txt 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Cisco Systems' Private 
VLANs: Scalable Security in a Multi-Client Environment' 
<draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10.txt> as an Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10862&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Mark Townsley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sanjib-private-vlan-10.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
   and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be 
   an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
   or introduction.

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? 

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?

Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the 
   Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
   experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
   in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'


IESG Note

      Response: 

   1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and
      IETF work.

     This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
     The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
     any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
     is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
     congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
     protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
     its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
     in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
     RFC 3932 for more information.

RFC Editor Note