[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

PCE Working Group                                               D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                                 D. King
Expires: September 28, 2017                         Lancaster University
                                                          March 27, 2017


     Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element
                     communication Protocol (PCEP)
                 draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03

Abstract

   IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
   communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
   IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
   codepoints and sub-registries.  The allocation policy for each new
   registry is by IETF Consensus.

   This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
   PCEP.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 http://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 September 28, 2017.







Dhody & King           Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                   March 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://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
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Handling of unknown experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  New PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.3.  New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Other Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

   In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
   parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).  IANA established a new top-
   level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
   The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as
   described in [RFC5226].  Specifically, new assignments are made via
   RFCs approved by the IESG.  Typically, the IESG will seek input on
   prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant



Dhody & King           Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                   March 2017


   Working Group if one exists).  Early allocation [RFC7120] provides
   some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved
   for features that are considered appropriately stable.

   With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
   with PCEP.  It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
   constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
   function, even when testing in a closed environment.  In order to run
   experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only
   with existing codepoints but any future allocation.

   This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and
   subregistries for experimental usage.

2.  PCEP Messages

   Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
   with new PCEP messages.  The suggested range is 246-255.

3.  PCEP Objects

   Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
   with new PCEP objects.  The suggested range is 224-255.

4.  PCEP TLVs

   Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
   with new PCEP TLVs.  The suggested range is 65280-65535.

5.  Handling of unknown experimentation

   A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message,
   that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of
   [RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability
   not supported).

   A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST
   reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with
   Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined as
   per [RFC5440].

   As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would
   be ignored.








Dhody & King           Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                   March 2017


6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.

6.1.  New PCEP Messages

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
   (see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   following allocations:

               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               |   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               | 246-255 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+

6.2.  New PCEP Objects

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
   (see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   following allocations:

               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               |   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               | 224-255 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+

6.3.  New PCEP TLVs

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
   PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
   following allocations:

             +------------+-------------+-------------------+
             |      Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
             +------------+-------------+-------------------+
             |65280-65535 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
             +------------+-------------+-------------------+





Dhody & King           Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                   March 2017


7.  Allocation Policy

   The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is
   "Experimental".  As per [RFC5226], IANA does not record specific
   assignments for any particular use for this policy.

   As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or
   RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and
   experimental code points are freed up.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
   the existing protocol.  Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
   specific security measures.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Adrian
   Farrel, Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff,
   and Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.





Dhody & King           Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                EXP-CODEPOINT                   March 2017


Appendix A.  Other Codepoints

   Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on
   the essentials in the scope of this documents.  For others,
   Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead.

Authors' Addresses

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Daniel King
   Lancaster University
   UK

   EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk





























Dhody & King           Expires September 28, 2017               [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/