[L1vpn] Document Action: 'OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery' to Experimental RFC
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Fri, 13 March 2009 23:01 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@core3.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: l1vpn@ietf.org
Delivered-To: l1vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4233328C18C; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-idtracker: yes
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <20090313230146.4233328C18C@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:01:46 -0700
Cc: l1vpn chair <l1vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, l1vpn mailing list <l1vpn@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [L1vpn] Document Action: 'OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery' to Experimental RFC
X-BeenThere: l1vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks <l1vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn>, <mailto:l1vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l1vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l1vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l1vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn>, <mailto:l1vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:01:46 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'OSPFv3 Based Layer 1 VPN Auto-Discovery ' <draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-03.txt> as an Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are David Ward and Ross Callon. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l1vpn-ospfv3-auto-discovery-03.txt Technical Summary This document defines an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) version 3 based Layer-1 Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) auto-discovery mechanism. This document parallels the existing OSPF version 2 L1VPN auto-discovery mechanism. The notable functional difference is the support of IPv6. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No issues Document Quality No issues Personnel Dave Ward