Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture
RFC 5110

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: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    mboned mailing list <mboned@ietf.org>, 
    mboned chair <mboned-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Overview of the Internet Multicast 
         Routing Architecture' to Informational RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture '
   <draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-13.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the MBONE Deployment Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-13.txt

* Technical Summary

The lack of up-to-date documentation on IP multicast routing
protocols and procedures has caused a great deal of confusion.
To clarify the situation, this memo describes the routing
protocols and techniques currently (as of this writing) in use.
This memo also obsoletes and reclassifies to Historic a number
of older multicast protocols.


* Working Group Summary

There was not any controversy about this document. There are
not many comments on the ML but none of the comments are negative.


* Protocol Quality

This document surveys the currently proposed/used protocols but
it does not propose any new protocol.


1.j) Please provide such a write-up. Recent examples can be found in
the "Action" announcements for approved documents.

1.k) Note:

* The relevant information for the technical summary 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.

* For the Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG
process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points, decisions where
consensus was particularly rough, etc.

* For the protocol quality, useful information includes:

+ Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

+ Have a significant number of vendors indicated they
plan to implement the specification?

* RFC Editor Note
   Please publish this draft as INFORMATIONAL