RE: Last Call: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels to Proposed Standard

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

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@ietf.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:30 PM
>To: IETF-Announce
>Cc: mpls@UU.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@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.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
>
>
>