--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-04.txt	2019-02-08 22:13:10.036887315 -0800
+++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-05.txt	2019-02-08 22:13:10.088888574 -0800
@@ -1,23 +1,23 @@
 
 MPLS Working Group                                       C. Ramachandran
 Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
 Updates: 4090 (if approved)                                     I. Minei
 Intended status: Standards Track                             Google, Inc
-Expires: February 10, 2019                                    D. Pacella
+Expires: August 12, 2019                                      D. Pacella
                                                                  Verizon
                                                                  T. Saad
                                                       Cisco Systems Inc.
-                                                          August 9, 2018
+                                                        February 8, 2019
 
           Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
-                     draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-04
+                     draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-05
 
 Abstract
 
    RSVP-TE relies on periodic refresh of RSVP messages to synchronize
    and maintain the LSP related states along the reserved path.  In the
    absence of refresh messages, the LSP related states are automatically
    deleted.  Reliance on periodic refreshes and refresh timeouts are
    problematic from the scalability point of view.  The number of RSVP-
    TE LSPs that a router needs to maintain has been growing in service
    provider networks and the implementations should be capable of
@@ -59,25 +59,25 @@
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
    Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
 
-   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 10, 2019.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2019.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
-   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
    (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
@@ -1040,22 +1040,22 @@
    Cisco Systems Inc.
    Email: mtaillon@cisco.com
 
 9.  References
 
 9.1.  Normative References
 
    [I-D.ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte]
               Taillon, M., Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Deshmukh, A., Jork, M.,
               and V. Beeram, "RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions
-              for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-01
-              (work in progress), April 2018.
+              for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-02
+              (work in progress), November 2018.
 
    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 
    [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
               Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
               Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
               September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
@@ -1090,36 +1090,27 @@
               "Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello:
               A Clarification Statement", RFC 4558,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC4558, June 2006,
               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4558>.
 
    [RFC5063]  Satyanarayana, A., Ed. and R. Rahman, Ed., "Extensions to
               GMPLS Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Graceful
               Restart", RFC 5063, DOI 10.17487/RFC5063, October 2007,
               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5063>.
 
-   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
-              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
-              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
-
    [RFC8370]  Beeram, V., Ed., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and
               T. Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE
               Deployments", RFC 8370, DOI 10.17487/RFC8370, May 2018,
               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8370>.
 
 9.2.  Informative References
 
-   [RFC5439]  Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., and O. Komolafe, "An Analysis of
-              Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks", RFC 5439,
-              DOI 10.17487/RFC5439, February 2009,
-              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5439>.
-
    [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
               Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
 
 Authors' Addresses
 
    Chandra Ramachandran
    Juniper Networks
 
    Email: csekar@juniper.net