Hi,
Also Facility back-up and Detour both do protection. Which one must be
implemented to comply with this draft? For interoperability reasons it seems
that
one of them should be Mandatory and the other one Optional.
Thanks,
Shahram Davari
-----Original Message-----
From: Shahram Davari
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:09 PM
To: 'ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: FW: Last Call: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels to Proposed Standard
Hi,
Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 mention two very different method for
backup path
identification and signaling. It is not clear which one should
be implemented for compliance to
this draft. For interoperability reason ONE of them should be
Mandatory and the other one optional.
Yours,
Shahram Davari
-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:30 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)UU(_dot_)NET
Subject: Last Call: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels
to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label
Switching
Working Group to consider Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
Tunnels <draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-02.txt> as a Proposed
Standard.
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by
2003-3-25.
Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fa
streroute-02.txt