Framework for Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Stephane Litkowski <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility' (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard and Martin Vigoureux. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/
Technical Summary Broadcast, Unknown an Multicast traffic forwarding requires the election of a designated forwarder (DF) is EVPN. RFC7432 defines an election procedure that does not cover all the use cases and may also cause some issues. This document defines a flexible framework that allows to negotiate the DF election algorithm to be used as well as some capabilities. This document also defines a new optional DF election algorithm as well as one capability which allows to recompute DF election based on an attachment circuit failure. Working Group Summary The document is coming from a merge of two documents. The merge was requested by the chairs during the WGLC of the two documents. There was no controversy about the content of the document. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is one implementation of HRW as well as one implementation of AC-DF. As the framework is new, these implementations may not be 100% compliant. Personnel Stephane Litkowski is the document shepherd. Martin Vigoureux is the responsible AD. IESG Note This Document has more than 5 authors because it results from a merge of two documents, requested by the chairs. The three main authors/contributors were kept from each original document.