Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol
RFC 6348

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>,
    mpls mailing list <mpls@ietf.org>,
    mpls chair <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Requirements for Point-To-Multipoint Extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol' to Historic (draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Requirements for Point-To-Multipoint Extensions to the Label
   Distribution Protocol'
  (draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-08.txt) as a Historic

This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs/


Technical Summary

  This document lists a set of functional requirements that served as
  input to the design of Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions
  for setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSP),
  in order to deliver point-to-multipoint applications over a Multi
  Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) infrastructure.

  This work was overtaken by the protocol solution developed by the 
  MPLS working group, and that solution did not closely follow the
  requirements documented here. This document is published as a
  historic record of the ideas and requirements that shaped the 
  protocol work.

Working Group Summary

  This document is an output from the MPLS working group and we have
  good support for it.

Document Quality

  The document is well reviewed.

Personnel

  Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel (adrian.farrel@huawei.com) is the Responsible AD.

RFC Editor Note

Please add one paragraph to the end of the Abstarct

NEW
   This work was overtaken by the protocol solution developed by the 
   MPLS working group, and that solution did not closely follow the
   requirements documented here. This document is published as a
   historic record of the ideas and requirements that shaped the 
   protocol work.
END

----

Please replace the first paragraph of Section 1

OLD
   This document lists a set of functional requirements that served as
   input to the design of Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions
   for setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths
   (LSP)[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp], in order to deliver point-to-
   multipoint applications over a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
   infrastructure.  It is published with Historic status with the
   perspective of documenting the work done.
NEW
    This document lists a set of functional requirements that served as
    input to the design of Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions
    for setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths
    (LSP)[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp], in order to deliver point-to-
    multipoint applications over a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
    infrastructure. This work was overtaken by the protocol solution
    developed by the MPLS working group and documented in
    [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp]. That solution did not closely follow the
    requirements documented here and it was recognized that this
    document had served its purpose in driving discussions of how the
    solution should be designed. At this point, no further action is
    planned to update this document in line with the protocol solution,
    and this document is published simply as a historic record of the
    ideas and requirements that shaped the protocol work.
END

---

Section 1.2

OLD
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
NEW
   This document is a historic requirements document. For the benefit
   of clarity of statement of requirements, keywords are used as follows.
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
END