Explicit Multicast (Xcast) Concepts and Options
RFC 5058

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Experimental RFC to be: 

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 
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:

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 
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

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.