Explicit Multicast (Xcast) Concepts and Options
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: RFC Editor <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-14.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Explicit Multicast (Xcast) Concepts and Options' <draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-14.txt> as an Experimental RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=6427&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Ross Callon. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ooms-xcast-basic-spec-14.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary This document describes Xcast (Explicit Multi-unicast (Xcast)), an experimental multicast scheme which supports a very large number of small multicast sessions by explicitly encoding the list of destinations in the data packets, instead of using a multicast group address. Working Group Summary This is an independent submission, and is not the work of any WG. Protocol Quality Ross Callon has reviewed this experimental document for the IESG. I have a concern that this document defines an experimental protocol that is not supported by existing routers, and probably will never be supported by the vast majority of existing routers. However, I don't see any conflict with existing IETF work, and therefore recommend that we send to the RFC editor the response (from 3932): 1. The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF work. Note to RFC Editor I recommend that this document be published with the normal IESG note which states: This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.