Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3
RFC 4817

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: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    mpls mailing list <mpls@lists.ietf.org>, 
    mpls chair <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 
         Tunneling Protocol Version 3' to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 '
   <draft-ietf-mpls-over-l2tpv3-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working 
Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-over-l2tpv3-04.txt

Technical Summary
 
   The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3, (L2TPv3) defines a
   protocol for tunneling a variety of payload types over IP networks.
   This document defines how to carry an MPLS label stack and its
   payload over L2TPv3. This enables an application which traditionally
   requires an MPLS-enabled core network to utilize an L2TPv3
   encapsulation over an IP network instead.

Working Group Summary
 
  There is a need for one or more approaches to run MPLS over a 
  datagram (IP) infrastructure. Options include MPLS directly over 
  IP, MPLS over GRE, or MPLS over L2TP. There is some difference of
  opinion regarding which approach to use, but there is rough 
  consensus to go ahead with this approach, and some who see 
  advantages (particularly wrt security) for this approach. Also,
  given that this is currently deployed, there is a significant 
  value in documenting this approach.  
 
Protocol Quality
 
  Ross Callon has reviewed the spec for the IESG. There are multiple 
  implementations, although as far as I know they are from one 
  (very large) vendor. The protocol has been deployed in more than
  one network. 

  There are a few minor editorial nits that were pointed out in 
  Gen-ART review. The authors intend to update the draft to fix
  these minor nits, but intend to do this at the same time as
  any IESG comments are addressed.