Concern about restoration in IPO framework

[Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>]

Alex,

In draft-ietf-ipo-framework-04.txt, the following text is terse:

   With out-of-band control, it is necessary to consider 
   fast signaling over the control channel using very short IP packets 
   and prioritized processing. While it is possible to use RSVP or CR-
   LDP for activating protection paths, these protocols do not provide 
   any means to give priority to restoration signaling as opposed to 
   signaling for provisioning. For instance, it is possible for a 
   restoration-related RSVP message to be queued behind a number of 
   provisioning messages thereby delaying restoration. It is therefore 
   necessary to develop a definition of QoS for restoration signaling 
   and incorporate mechanisms in existing signaling protocols to 
   achieve this. Or, a new signaling protocol may be developed 
   exclusively for activating protection paths during restoration.  
 
The last two sentences are a very brief reference to what would be a
significant piece of work that needs more justification and a sharper
(not detailed, but more specific, multi-sentence) characterization.
Would the QoS term be a reference to be a new priority service for
RSVP-TE?  Where/how would this work be developed?  Alex mentioned that
the allusion to a new signaling protocol may be to MPLS-FRR - it
is inaccurate to call this work a signaling protocol and it would do
better service to the framework to briefly describe where the fast
restoration directions have gone (and explain their rationale a bit).

Allison