Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-11-08
Requested 2019-10-23
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Mike Taillon , Tarek Saad , Rakesh Gandhi , Abhishek Deshmukh , Markus Jork , Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Draft last updated 2019-11-04
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Andrew G. Malis (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Reese Enghardt (diff)
Prep for IETF Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Andrew G. Malis
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-05-rtgdir-lc-malis-2019-11-04
Posted at
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 09)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2019-11-04

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte.txt
Reviewer: Andy Malis
Review Date: 4 November 2019
IETF LC End Date: N/A (not yet last-called)
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be considered prior to publication.


This is a well-written draft that is easy to follow. The draft has
benefitted from previous reviews, including during WG Last Call, when an
issue arose regarding the MTU size of the bypass tunnel resulting from FRR.
The draft is an extension to existing RSVP-TE signaling to reduce the
amount of signaling and increase the scalability for FRR. The draft is
careful to be backwards compatible with nodes that do not support it.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.


Section 1, second paragraph: "large scale RSVP-TE LSPs deployment" ->
"large scale RSVP-TE deployment"

Section 2.1: The key words paragraph is out of date. The current wording is:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

RFC 8174 should also be added as a normative reference.

Section 3.1.2:

"The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents
 of the B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID changes; for example,
 when PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment." ->
"The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents
 of the B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID changes (e.g,,
 when the PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment)."

Section 4: The title of this section may be better as "Backwards
Compatibility" rather than just "Compatibility".

Section 5: "message, a slightly" -> "message, slightly"

Section 6: This section includes the URL for an IANA registry. These may
change over time as IANA reorganizes their registries, and thus just
referencing the appropriate registry and sub-registry by name is sufficient.

This section also contains a reference to the IANA "Resource Reservation
Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry, but that registry isn't referenced
elsewhere in the text and should be removed from this section.