draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-05.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-06.txt
	Internet Draft Ping Pan, Ed (Ciena Corp)		Internet Draft Ping Pan, Ed (Ciena Corp)
	Expires: November 2004 George Swallow, Ed (Cisco Systems)		Expires: November 2004 George Swallow, Ed (Cisco Systems)
	Alia Atlas, Ed (Avici Systems)		Alia Atlas, Ed (Avici Systems)
	Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels		Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels
	draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-05.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-06.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with		This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
	all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.		all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 5		skipping to change at page 3, line 5
	8.1.2.1 An Example on Path Message Merging ............ 31		8.1.2.1 An Example on Path Message Merging ............ 31
	8.1.3 Message Handling for Merged Detours ............... 32		8.1.3 Message Handling for Merged Detours ............... 32
	8.2 Handling Failures ..................................... 32		8.2 Handling Failures ..................................... 32
	9 Behavior of all LSRs ...................................... 33		9 Behavior of all LSRs ...................................... 33
	9.1 Merging Detours in Path-Specific Method ............... 33		9.1 Merging Detours in Path-Specific Method ............... 33
	10 Security Considerations ................................... 34		10 Security Considerations ................................... 34
	11 IANA Guidelines ........................................... 34		11 IANA Guidelines ........................................... 34
	12 Intellectual Property Considerations ...................... 34		12 Intellectual Property Considerations ...................... 34
	13 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 35		13 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 35
	14 Acknowledgments ........................................... 35		14 Acknowledgments ........................................... 35
	15 Normative References ...................................... 35		15 Normative References ...................................... 36
	16 Editor Information ........................................ 36		16 Editor Information ........................................ 36
	1. Authors		1. Authors
	This document was written by George Swallow, Ping Pan, Alia Atlas,		This document was written by George Swallow, Ping Pan, Alia Atlas,
	Jean Philippe Vasseur, Markus Jork, Der-Hwa Gan, and Dave Cooper.		Jean Philippe Vasseur, Markus Jork, Der-Hwa Gan, and Dave Cooper.
	Jean Philippe Vasseur		Jean Philippe Vasseur
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	300 Beaver Brook Road		300 Beaver Brook Road
	skipping to change at page 34, line 23		skipping to change at page 34, line 23
	This document does not introduce new security issues. The security		This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
	considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RSVP] remain		considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RSVP] remain
	relevant.		relevant.
	It should be noted that the facility backup technique requires that		It should be noted that the facility backup technique requires that
	a PLR and its selected Merge Point will trust RSVP messages		a PLR and its selected Merge Point will trust RSVP messages
	received from each other.		received from each other.
	11. IANA Section		11. IANA Section
	IANA [RFC-IANA] will assign RSVP Class-Num 205 for the		IANA [RFC-IANA] will assign RSVP Class Number 205 for the
	FAST_REROUTE and RSVP Class-Num 63 for the DETOUR object. This		FAST_REROUTE and RSVP Class Number 63 for the DETOUR object. This
	matches the current usage in production networks.		matches the current usage in production networks.
	IANA will assign C-Type 1 for the standard FAST_REROUTE object		IANA will assign C-Type 1 for the standard FAST_REROUTE object
	format defined in section 5.1 and list C-Type 7 as reserved as it		format defined in section 5.1 and list C-Type 7 as reserved as it
	is still used by pre-standard implementations.		is still used by pre-standard implementations. Future C-Types
			will be assigned using the following guidelines:
	IANA will assign C-Types 7 and 8 to the IPv4 and IPv6 DETOUR		C-Types 0 through 127 are assigned by Standards Action.
	object formats as defined in section 5.2.		C-Types 128 through 191 are assigned by Expert Review.
			C-Types 192 through 255 are reserved for Vendor Private Use.
			IANA will assign C-Types 7 and 8 to the IPv4 and IPv6 DETOUR object
			formats as defined in section 5.2. Future C-Types will be
			assigned using the following guidelines:
			C-Types 0 through 127 are assigned by Standards Action.
			C-Types 128 through 191 are assigned by Expert Review.
			C-Types 192 through 255 are reserved for Vendor Private Use.
	12. Intellectual Property Considerations		12. Intellectual Property Considerations
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to		intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
	might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it		might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
	has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the		has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
	IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and		IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
End of changes.
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/