Subject: Protocol Action: 'Multipoint LDP in-band signaling for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint- to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-08.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:42:49 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Multipoint LDP in-band signaling for Point-to-Multipoint and
   Multipoint- to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths'
  (draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-in-band-signaling-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

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-mldp-in-band-signaling/

Technical Summary

   Sometimes an IP multicast tree, constructed by Protocol Independent
   Multicast (PIM), needs to pass through an MPLS domain in which
   Multipoint LDP (mLDP) Point-to-Multipoint and/or Multipoint-to-
   Multipoint Labels Switched Paths (LSPs) can be created.  The part of
   the IP multicast tree that traverses the MPLS domain can be
   instantiated as a multipoint LSP.  When a PIM Join message is
   received at the border of the MPLS domain, information from that
   message is encoded into mLDP messages.  When the mLDP messages reach
   the border of the next IP domain, the encoded information is used to
   generate PIM messages that can be sent through the IP domain.  The
   result is an IP multicast tree consisting of a set of IP multicast
   sub-trees that are spliced together with a multipoint LSP.  This
   document describes procedures how IP multicast trees are spliced
   together with multipoint LSPs.

Working Group Summary 

  The MPLS working group has a few non-MPLS-TP documents that fell 
  into the cracks when we were allocating almost all of our time to 
  wrapping up the MPLS-TP documents. This document is one of them. 
  Version -04 of the document was working group last called in 
  October 2011, it was updated based on on comments during working 
  group last call. After that the shepherd fumbled and left the 
  draft without attention for almost 6 months. 

  When we finally got around to paying attention to the document 
  again the document shepherd re-reviewed it and found there was no 
  reason to re-issue a working group last call. The draft is stable. 

  This document has a strong support in the working group 
  and has been well reviewed. We had good discussions both 
  on the mailing list and at the f2f meetings. 

Document Quality 

  We know of existing implementations and intentions to implement 
  this specification. 

  AD review resulted in a new revision clarifying a number of small
  points.

Personnel 

  Loa Andersson ([email-masked]) is the document shepherd. 
  Adrian Farrel ([email-masked]) is the responsible AD.