Label Switched Path (LSP) Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-07.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'LSP Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering' <draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-07.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10018&rfc_flag=0) related to this document and determine whether or not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot and the comment log. The IESG contact person is Ross Callon. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deoliveira-diff-te-preemption-07.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary When the establishment of a higher priority Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path requires the preemption of a set of lower priority TE LSPs, a node has to make a local decision to select which TE LSPs will be preempted. The preempted LSPs are then rerouted by their respective Head-end Label Switch Router. This document presents a flexible policy that can be used to achieve a variety of objectives when LSPs are preempted. Simulation results are given and a comparison among several different policies is also included. Working Group Summary This is an individual submission via the RFC editor. Protocol Quality Ross Callon has reviewed this spec. The document, while an individual submission, was referred to the CCAMP working group for progression. Using the terms from section 3 of 3932, historically the reason was: 5. The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval. At this point the document has been updated based on detailed comments by the CCAMP co-chair, updated, and last called in the CCAMP working group. Last call comments have been resolved. We believe that the status should now be: 2. The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG CCAMP, but this does not prevent publishing. Note to RFC Editor We believe that having been successfully updated, and then reviewed in CCAMP, the document is now ready to be published. Given that this is still an individual submission, we believe that the proper note to specify its status would be: This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review for such things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. Readers of this document should exercise caution in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment. See RFC 3932 for more information.