An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13

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>,
    lisp mailing list <lisp@ietf.org>,
    lisp chair <lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
   (LISP)'
  (draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman, Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas
and Deborah Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-introduction/


Technical Summary:

	  The document provides an introductionary overview of the
	  the architecture of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
	  (LISP). The aim of this document is to ease the reading
	  of the complete LISP specifications.


Working Group Summary:

	  The document received a strong support from the WG from the
	  very beginning, when was an individual submission. An
	  intermin meeting has been organized in 2013 in order to make
	  progress on the document, which however was growing large.
	  Due to the lack of the activity of the original author, two
	  new editors have been appointed by the WG chairs. Since then,
	  the document has progressed rapidly and has been wrapped up
	  in few months, thanks to the large support and contribution
	  of the WG.


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? 

	  The document does not define any new protocol or mechanism, 
	  hence no special review is needed. 
	  Its informational content is well written and of a high standard. 


Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? 

       	  Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>    
     
  	   	    	    
Who is the Responsible Area Director?

          Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>