Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP) Egress Protection
RFC 8400

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-03 for -14)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing the SecDir comments.

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Comment (2018-03-07 for -15)
No email
send info

I found this document a little hard to follow because it took me a while to understand the difference between the current situation and the change in the draft. Would you consider putting part of the material from S 6 in the introduction so non-experts could have more context?

   locally protecting the egress node(s) of an LSP.

   This document fills that void and specifies extensions to RSVP-TE for
For those of us who are not experts, can you say what "protecting" means?

   egresses L1 and L2 of a primary P2MP LSP from ingress R1 to two
   egresses L1 and L2.  La and Lb are the designated backup egresses for
   primary egresses L1 and L2 respectively.  The backup LSP for
This might be the tiniest bit confusing, as it mentions L1 and L2 twice.

   The exact mechanism by which the failure of the primary egress is
   detected by the upstream node is out of the scope of this document.
It would be helpful for me if you specified what the upstream node is. Is it R3?

   node does not provide any fast local protection against the failure
   of the primary egress node.  In this case, the backup LSP from the
   branch node to the backup egress node protects against failures on
This sentence would be clearer if it said
"If the direct upstream node does not provide any fast local protection ....."

   the subobject in bytes, including Type, Length and Contents fields.
   The Reserved field MUST be set to zero.
What are the semantics of the optional subobjects?

   To protect the VPN traffic against the failure of the egress L1 of
   the LSP, an existing solution (refer to Figure 2) includes:
I wasn't reading this closely, so it took me a minute to be like "hold on, this is reroute from R1, nor R3". Probably just me being stupid, but it might have helped to have a subsection like "Existing solution before this draft"

       The PLR R3 is closer to L1 than the ingress R1.  It may detect
       the failure of the egress L1 faster and more reliable.  Thus we
       can have faster protection for egress.
Nit: "more more reliably"

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection