Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires
RFC 6478

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>,
    pwe3 mailing list <pwe3@ietf.org>,
    pwe3 chair <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires'
  (draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status/


Technical Summary

   This document specifies a mechanism to signal Pseudowire (PW) status
   messages using an PW associated channel (ACh). Such a mechanism is
   suitable for use where no PW dynamic control plane exits, known as
   static PWs, or where a Terminating Provider Edge (T-PE) needs to send
   a PW status message directly to a far end T-PE. The mechanism allows
   PW OAM message mapping and PW redundancy to operate on static PWs.
   This document also updates rfc5885 in the case when Bi-directional
   Forwarding Detection (BFD) is used to convey PW status signaling
   information.

Working Group Summary

This document represents the consensus of the working group.
It is a part of the MPLS-TP project in the IETF.

Document Quality

It is required for the use of pseudowires for statically
provisioned MPLS-TP, and thus is expected to be widely implemented and
deployed. There are no concerns regarding the document's quality.

Personnel

Andy Malis is the Document Shepherd for this document.
Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

In section 5.2.

OLD
The PW Status TLV format almost as defined in [RFC4447],
 and is repeated here for the reader's convenience:
NEW
The PW Status TLV format is almost as defined in [RFC4447],
 and is repeated here for the reader's convenience:
END

I