Signal-Free Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast
RFC 8378

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: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast@ietf.org, ggx@gigix.net, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr
Subject: Document Action: 'Signal-Free LISP Multicast' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Signal-Free LISP Multicast'
  (draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09.txt) as Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah Brungard.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast/


Technical Summary

The document propose an extension to the LISP Multicast mechanism in
 the specific case where sources and receivers are placed in LISP sites
 but the core network interconnecting these sites does not support
 any form of multicast. The proposed mechanism allow to create an
 overlay. More specifically this overlay create a unicast replication tree
allowing to deliver multicast traffic from the sources to all receivers using
LISP unicast encapsulation.

Working Group Summary

The document has been around since 2014, and has been discussed
several times. From the beginning, there was support, because
it proposes a simple mechanism to effectively tackle the issue related
to the lack of multicast support in the core network interconnecting LISP
site using multicast.
The WG has expressed a clear consensus on the -06 version of the document.
While performing my review as a shepherd of the document I noticed that sometime
the RFC 2119 terminology was missing/unclear. I asked the authors to clarify the text
and this generated the -07 version, which the reference document for this write up.
Because changing the RFC 2119 terminology is a technical change the -07 version of
the document has been last called  a second time to check if there was any objection
from the WG. There was none.

Document Quality

There is at least one implementation of the proposed mechanism.

Personnel

   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Luigi Iannone 
    Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard