Bandwidth Constraints Models for Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering: Performance Evaluation
draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-06

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-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-07.txt 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Bandwidth Constraints 
Models for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering: Performance 
Evaluation' <draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-07.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=9103&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 Bert Wijnen.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-07.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
 
   The Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic
   Engineering Requirements RFC 3564 specifies the requirements and
   selection criteria for Bandwidth Constraints Models.  Two such
   models, the Maximum Allocation and the Russian Dolls, are described
   therein.  This document complements RFC 3564 by presenting the
   results of a performance evaluation of these two models under
   various operational conditions: normal load, overload, preemption
   fully or partially enabled, pure blocking, or complete sharing.
 
Working Group Summary
 
  THis document was discussed in the Traffic Engineering WG (TEWG)
  and they are OK with this doc bening published as an Informational
  RFC via an individual submission to RFC-Editor
 
Protocol Quality
 
  Bert Wijnen checked with TEWG to ensure there are no conflicts.

Notes to RFC-Editor:

1. Please insert the following note on the front page:

  The content of this RFC is considered by the IETF (specically in
  the TE-WG working Group, which has no problem with publication as
  Inmformational RFC), and therefore it  may resemble a current
  IETF work in progress or a published IETF work. 
  This RFC describes the results of a performance evaluation
  of two Bandwidth Constraint Models under various operational 
  conditions: normal load, overload, preemption fully or partially
  enabled, pure blocking, or complete sharing.
  However, this document is an individual submission and 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 it has not had complete 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 RFC should exercise caution in evaluating its value for
  implementation and deployment.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

RFC Editor Note