BIER Penultimate Hop Popping
draft-ietf-bier-php-16

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bier-chairs@ietf.org, bier@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-php@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Subject: Protocol Action: 'BIER Penultimate Hop Popping' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bier-php-16.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BIER Penultimate Hop Popping'
  (draft-ietf-bier-php-16.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Bit Indexed Explicit Replication Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-php/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document specifies a mechanism for Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)
   in the Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture.  PHP
   enables the removal of the BIER header by the penultimate router,
   thereby reducing the processing burden on the final router in the
   delivery path.  This extension to BIER enhances operational
   efficiency by optimizing packet forwarding in scenarios where the
   final hop's capabilities or requirements necessitate such handling.
   The document details the necessary extensions to the BIER
   encapsulation and forwarding processes to support PHP, providing
   guidance for implementation and deployment within BIER-enabled
   networks.

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? 

There is a broad agreement to adopt and progress this work in the working group.
No complications from consensus building perspective

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?

There is no report for existing or planned implementation yet, due to slow 
deployment of base BIER functionality itself.
The situation is changing as more vendor implementations for BIER are coming.
As this extension will further promote the BIER deployment, it is expected that 
vendors will start planning to support it.

directorate reviewers have claimed that the document is nicely written and easy to understand even by someone who is
not familiar with BIER.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Xiao Min. The Responsible
   Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

IANA review state: IANA - Not OK
  (AD asked document author to update draft to provide the requested IANA information)
IANA expert review state: Expert Reviews OK

RFC Editor Note