Subject: [pim] Protocol Action: 'Segment Routing MPLS Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy Ping' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24.txt)
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF-Announce" <[email-masked]>
Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 16:09:17 -0700
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Segment Routing MPLS Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy Ping'
  (draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Protocols for IP Multicast Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan
Talaulikar.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/

Technical Summary

   SR Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are used to define and manage
   explicit P2MP paths within a network.  These policies are typically
   calculated via a controller-based mechanisms and installed via a Path
   Computation Element (PCE).  In other cases these policies can be
   installed manually via YANG modles or CLI.  They are used to steer
   multicast traffic along optimized paths from a Root to a set of Leaf
   routers.

   This document defines extensions to Ping and Traceroute mechanisms
   for Segment Routing (SR) P2MP Policy with MPLS encapsulation to
   provide OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance)
   capabilities.  The proposed extensions enable operators to verify
   connectivity, diagnose failures and troubleshoot forwarding issues
   within P2MP Policy multicast trees.

   By introducing new mechanisms for detecting failures and validating
   path integrity, this document enhances the operational robustness of
   P2MP multicast deployments.  Additionally, it ensures that existing
   MPLS and SR-based OAM tools can be effectively applied to networks
   utilizing P2MP Policies.

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? 

All processing went smooth in collaboration with SPRING

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Implementation from Nokia exists.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Mike McBride. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.