Quality of Service (QoS) Signaling in a Nested Virtual Private Network
RFC 4923

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>
Subject: Document Action: 'QoS Signaling in a Nested Virtual 
         Private Network' to Informational RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'QoS Signaling in a Nested Virtual Private Network '
   <draft-ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signaled-preemption-03.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Transport Area Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Magnus Westerlund and Lars Eggert.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-vpn-signaled-preemption-03.txt

Technical Summary

More and more networks wish to guarantee secure transmission of IP
traffic for across public LANs or WANs and therefore use Virtual Private
Networks. Some networks require communication between an interior and
exterior portion of a VPN, but have sensitivities about what information
is communicated across the boundary. This document seeks to outline the
issues and the nature of the proposed solutions. The outline of the QoS
solution for real-time traffic has been described at a high level in RFC
4542.

The thrust of this document involves VPNs that use encryption in some
form, such as IPsec. As a result, this document will discuss the VPN
Router supporting "plaintext" and "ciphertext" interfaces. However, the
concept extends readily to any form of aggregation, including the concept
proposed in [RFC3175] of the IP traffic entering and leaving a network at
identified points, and the use of other kinds of tunnels including GRE,
IP/IP, MPLS, and so on.

 
Working Group Summary
 
There is strong consensus in the WG to publish this document. It has been
reviewed by several people prior to and in the WG last call. Comments
raised have been addressed.

 
Protocol Quality
 
This document does not propose any protocol extension.

This document has been well reviewed in the WG and comments raised have
been addressed. Magnus Westerlund was the responsible AD. James Polk was
WG shepherd.