Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS Packet Switched Networks

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    pwe3 mailing list <>,
    pwe3 chair <>
Subject: Document Action: 'Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over MPLS Packet Switched Networks' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowires over
   MPLS Packet Switched Networks'
  (draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-10.txt) as Informational RFC

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

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

   This document presents a set of requirements and a framework for 
   providing a Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire (PW) over MPLS Packet 
   Switched Networks. The requirements identified in this document are 
   related to architecture, signaling and maintenance aspects of Point-
   to-Multipoint PW operation. They are proposed as guidelines for the 
   standardization of such mechanisms. Among other potential 
   applications, Point-to-Multipoint PWs can be used to optimize the 
   support of multicast layer 2 services (Virtual Private LAN Service 
   and Virtual Private Multicast Service) as defined in the Layer 2 
   Virtual Private Network Working Group.

Working Group Summary

   This draft has taken a while as it required extensive rewriting by a new
   editor following the previous time it was submitted to the IESG. This
   added quite a bit of time to the process, but has greatly improved the
   quality of the draft.

   There was a bit of controversy regarding a late IPR declaration. The 
   result was the removal of an optional feature believed to be the sole
   material covered by the IPD disclosure. The IPR holder has been 
   approached to ask whether they will consider updating the disclosure
   but no response has been received yet.

Document Quality

   As this is a requirements and framework draft, there can be no
   implementations.  Solutions work is building on these requirements.

   Stewart Bryant deserves special mention as the AD that resulted in
   the document largely being re-written, which improved its quality.


   Andy Malis is the Document Shepherd
   Adrian Farrel is the Responsible AD.

RFC Editor Note

Section 5


       The solution SHOULD provide means to guarantee the traffic delivery
                        to receivers (Integrity, Confidentially)


      The solution SHOULD provide means to protect the traffic delivered
                        to receivers (Integrity, Confidentially, Endpoint