Optional Advanced Deployment Scenarios for the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)
RFC 6748

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "Lars Eggert" <lars@netapp.com>, "Internet Research Steering Group" <irsg@irtf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, tony.li@tony.li
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for <draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-03.txt>

The IESG has completed a review of <draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv> consistent
with RFC5742.  This review is applied to all non-IETF streams.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Optional Advanced
Deployment Scenarios for ILNP' <draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv-03.txt> as an
Experimental RFC.

The IESG would also like the IRSG to review the comments in
the datatracker
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv/) related to
this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into
the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the history log.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

The process for such documents is described at

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary


   Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> is the document shepherd.  
   Stephen Farrell managed the IESG review.


     The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
      in the LISP and HIP WGs, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

If the authors would like 'em, here are some comments:

- This could probably be informational.  I only noticed
one MUST (in CAPS) on p12, though there some in lower
case and some lowercase shoulds.  If that MUST from p12
is stated as such in any of the rest of the document set,
then I'd say this'd be just fine as informational. If you
made that change you could probably make all referencs
informative as well and loose the reference to 2119.


- last para of section 2 says "in this document" but has
a load of references; maybe s/this document/ these

- Title of section 7.2 is oddly indented