< draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04.txt   draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05.txt >
PCE Working Group A. Raghuram PCE Working Group A. Raghuram
Internet-Draft A. Goddard Internet-Draft A. Goddard
Intended status: Standards Track C. Yadlapalli Intended status: Standards Track AT&T
Expires: December 6, 2019 AT&T Expires: December 23, 2019 J. Karthik
J. Karthik
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
J. Parker
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Negi M. Negi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
June 4, 2019 June 21, 2019
Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and
obtain control of a LSP obtain control of a Label Switched Path (LSP)
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-04 draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05
Abstract Abstract
The stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) retains information about
(PCEP) extensions provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label the placement of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). When a PCE has stateful
via PCEP, for a model where a Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates control over LSPs it may send indications to LSP head-ends to modify
control over one or more locally configured LSPs to a stateful PCE. the attributes (especially the paths) of the LSPs. A Path
There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to request and Computation Client (PCC) has set up LSPs under local configuration
obtain control of one or more LSPs from a PCC. This document may delegate control of those LSPs to a stateful PCE.
describes a simple extension to stateful PCEP to achieve such an
objective.
Requirements Language There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to obtain
control of locally configured LSPs of which it is aware but that have
not been delegated to the PCE.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", This document describes an extension to the Path Computation Element
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable a PCE to make such requests.
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 6, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. LSP Control Request Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. LSP Control Request Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. SRP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. SRP Object Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Stateful PCEP extensions [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP)
PCEP [RFC5440] to enable stateful control of TE LSPs between and extensions [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP [RFC5440]
across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes to enable stateful control of Traffic Engineering Label Switched
mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, Paths (TE LSPs) between and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and [RFC4657]. It includes mechanisms to effect LSP state
synchronization between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs,
delegation of control of LSPs to PCE, and PCE control of timing and
sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The
stateful PCEP defines the following two useful network operations: stateful PCEP defines the following two useful network operations:
o Delegation: As per [RFC8051], an operation to grant a PCE o Delegation: As per [RFC8051], an operation to grant a PCE
temporary rights to modify a subset of LSP parameters on one or temporary rights to modify a subset of LSP parameters on one or
more LSPs of a PCC. LSPs are delegated from a PCC to a PCE and more LSPs of a PCC. LSPs are delegated from a PCC to a PCE and
are referred to as "delegated" LSPs. are referred to as "delegated" LSPs.
o Revocation: As per [RFC8231], an operation performed by a PCC on a o Revocation: As per [RFC8231], an operation performed by a PCC on a
previously delegated LSP. Revocation revokes the rights granted previously delegated LSP. Revocation revokes the rights granted
to the PCE in the delegation operation. to the PCE in the delegation operation.
For Redundant Stateful PCEs (section 5.7.4. of [RFC8231]), during a For Redundant Stateful PCEs (section 5.7.4. of [RFC8231]), during a
PCE failure, one of the redundant PCE could request to take control PCE failure, one of the redundant PCE could request to take control
over an LSP. The redundant PCEs MAY use a local policy or a over an LSP. The redundant PCEs may use a local policy or a
proprietary election mechanism to decide which PCE would take proprietary election mechanism to decide which PCE would take
control. In this case, a mechanism is needed for a stateful PCE to control. In this case, a mechanism is needed for a stateful PCE to
request control of one or more LSPs from a PCC, so that a newly request control of one or more LSPs from a PCC, so that a newly
elected primary PCE can request to take over control. elected primary PCE can request to take over control.
In case of virtualized PCEs (vPCE) running as virtual network In case of virtualized PCEs (vPCE) running as virtual network
function (VNF), as the computation load in the network increases, a function (VNF), as the computation load in the network increases, a
new instance of vPCE could be instantiated to balance the current new instance of vPCE could be instantiated to balance the current
load. The PCEs could use proprietary algorithm to decide which LSPs load. The PCEs could use proprietary algorithm to decide which LSPs
to be assigned to the new vPCE. Thus having a mechanism for the PCE to be assigned to the new vPCE. Thus having a mechanism for the PCE
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 21
PCE: Path Computation Element PCE: Path Computation Element
PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol. PCEP: Path Computation Element communication Protocol.
PCRpt: Path Computation State Report message. PCRpt: Path Computation State Report message.
PCUpd: Path Computation Update Request message. PCUpd: Path Computation Update Request message.
PLSP-ID: A PCEP-specific identifier for the LSP. PLSP-ID: A PCEP-specific identifier for the LSP.
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. LSP Control Request Flag 3. LSP Control Request Flag
The Stateful PCE Request Parameters (SRP) object is defined in The Stateful PCE Request Parameters (SRP) object is defined in
[RFC8231], it includes a Flags field. [RFC8281] defines a R (LSP- [RFC8231], it includes a Flags field.
REMOVE) flag.
A new flag, the "LSP Control Request Flag" (C), is introduced in the A new flag, the "LSP-Control Request Flag" (C), is introduced in the
SRP object. On a PCUpd message, a PCE sets the C Flag to 1 to SRP object. On a PCUpd message, a PCE sets the C Flag to 1 to
indicate that, it wishes to gain control of LSP(s). The LSP is indicate that, it wishes to gain control of LSPs. The LSPs are
identified by the LSP object. A PLSP-ID of value other than 0 and identified by the LSP object. A PLSP-ID of value other than 0 and
0xFFFFF is used to identify the LSP for which the PCE requests 0xFFFFF is used to identify the LSP for which the PCE requests
control. The PLSP-ID value of 0 indicates that the PCE is requesting control. The PLSP-ID value of 0 indicates that the PCE is requesting
control of all LSPs originating from the PCC that it wishes to control of all LSPs originating from the PCC that it wishes to
delegate. The flag has no meaning in the PCRpt and PCInitiate delegate. The C flag has no meaning in the PCRpt and PCInitiate
message and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on message and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
receipt. receipt.
4. Operation 4. Operation
During normal operation, a PCC that wishes to delegate the control of During normal operation, a PCC that wishes to delegate the control of
an LSP sets the D Flag (delegate) to 1 in all PCRpt messages an LSP sets the D Flag (delegate) to 1 in all PCRpt messages
pertaining to the LSP. The PCE confirms the delegation by setting D pertaining to the LSP. The PCE confirms the delegation by setting D
Flag to 1 in all PCUpd messages pertaining to the LSP. The PCC Flag to 1 in all PCUpd messages pertaining to the LSP. The PCC
revokes the control of the LSP from the PCE by setting D Flag to 0 in revokes the control of the LSP from the PCE by setting D Flag to 0 in
PCRpt messages pertaining to the LSP. If the PCE wishes to PCRpt messages pertaining to the LSP. If the PCE wishes to
relinquish the control of the LSP, it sets D Flag to 0 in all PCUpd relinquish the control of the LSP, it sets D Flag to 0 in all PCUpd
messages pertaining to the LSP. messages pertaining to the LSP.
If a PCE wishes to gain control over an LSP, it sends a PCUpd message If a PCE wishes to gain control over an LSP, it sends a PCUpd message
with C Flag set to 1 in SRP object. The LSP for which the PCE with C Flag set to 1 in SRP object. The LSP for which the PCE
requests control is identified by the PLSP-ID. The PLSP-ID of 0 requests control is identified by the PLSP-ID. The PLSP-ID of 0
indicates that the PCE wants control over all LSPs originating from indicates that the PCE wants control over all LSPs originating from
the PCC. If the LSP(s) is/are already delegated to the PCE making the PCC. A PCC that receives a PCUpd message with C Flag set to 1
the request, the PCC ignores the C Flag. A PCC can decide to and PLSP-ID of 0 MUST NOT trigger the error condition for unknown
delegate the control of the LSP at its own discretion. If the PCC PLSP-ID in an LSP update request as per [RFC8231]. The PCE SHOULD
grants or denies the control, it sends PCRpt message with D Flag set NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the
to 1 and 0 respectively in accordance with according with stateful PCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag
PCEP [RFC8231] . If the PCC does not grant the control, it MAY choose SHOULD NOT be set. If a PCC receives a PCUpd message with D flag set
to not respond, and the PCE may choose to retry requesting the in the LSP object (i.e. LSP is already delegated) and the C flag is
control preferably using exponentially increasing timer. A PCE also set (i.e. PCE is making a control request), the PCC MUST ignore
ignores the C Flag on the PCRpt message. Note that, the PCUpd the C Flag. A PCC can decide to delegate the control of the LSP at
message with C flag set is received for a currently non-delegated LSP its own discretion. If the PCC grants or denies the control, it
(for which the PCE is requesting delegation), this MUST NOT trigger sends PCRpt message with D Flag set to 1 and 0 respectively in
the error handling as specified in [RFC8231] (a PCErr with Error- accordance with stateful PCEP [RFC8231]. If the PCC does not grant
type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value 1 (Attempted LSP Update the control, it MAY choose to not respond, and the PCE MAY choose to
Request for a non-delegated LSP)). retry requesting the control preferably using exponentially
increasing timer. A PCE ignores the C Flag on the PCRpt message.
Note that, the PCUpd message with C flag set is received for a
currently non-delegated LSP (for which the PCE is requesting
delegation), this MUST NOT trigger the error handling as specified in
[RFC8231] (a PCErr with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-
value 1 (Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP)).
In case multiple PCEs request control over an LSP, and if the PCC is As per [RFC8231], a PCC cannot delegate an LSP to more than one PCE
willing to grant the control, the LSP MUST be delegated to only one at any time. If a PCE requests control of an LSP that has already
PCE chosen by the PCC based on its local policy. been delegated by the PCC to another PCE, the PCC MAY ignore the
request, or MAY revoke the delegation to the first PCE before
delegating it to the second. This choice is a matter of local
policy.
It should be noted that a legacy implementation of PCC, that does not It should be noted that a legacy implementation of PCC, that does not
understand the C flag in PCUpd message, would simply ignore the flag support this extension would trigger the error condition as specified
(and the request to grant control over the LSP). At the same time it in [RFC8231] (a PCErr with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
would trigger the error condition as specified in [RFC8231] (a PCErr error-value 1 (Attempted LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP))
with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value 1 (Attempted as the D flag would be unset in this update request. Further, in
LSP Update Request for a non-delegated LSP)). case of PLSP-ID of 0, the error condition as specified in [RFC8231]
(a PCErr with Error-type=19 (Invalid Operation) and error-value 3
(Attempted LSP Update Request for an LSP identified by an unknown
PSP-ID)) would be triggered.
[RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE- [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-
initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. It also specify how a initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. It also specify how a
PCE MAY obtain control over an orphaned LSP that was PCE-initiated. PCE MAY obtain control over an orphaned LSP that was PCE-initiated.
A PCE implementation can apply the mechanism described in this A PCE implementation can apply the mechanism described in this
document in conjunction with those in [RFC8281]. document in conjunction with those in [RFC8281].
5. Implementation Status 5. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.] well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
A PCE implementation can apply the mechanism described in this A PCE implementation can apply the mechanism described in this
document in conjunction with those in [RFC8281]. document in conjunction with those in [RFC8281].
5. Implementation Status 5. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.] well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is The description of implementations in this section is intended to
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that exist.
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
5.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS 5.1. Huawei's Proof of Concept based on ONOS
The PCE function was developed in the ONOS open source platform. The PCE function was developed in the ONOS open source platform.
This extension was implemented on a private version as a proof of This extension was implemented on a private version as a proof of
skipping to change at page 6, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 9
o Maturity Level: Prototype o Maturity Level: Prototype
o Coverage: Full o Coverage: Full
o Contact: satishk@huawei.com o Contact: satishk@huawei.com
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply The security considerations listed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply
to this document as well. However, this document also introduces a to this document as well. However, this document also introduces a
new attack vectors. An attacker may flood the PCC with request to new attack vector. An attacker may flood the PCC with request to
delegate all its LSPs at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to delegate all its LSPs at a rate which exceeds the PCC's ability to
process them, either by spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE process them, either by spoofing messages or by compromising the PCE
itself. The PCC can simply ignore these messages with no extra itself. The PCC SHOULD be configured with a threshold rate for the
actions. Securing the PCEP session using mechanism like Transport delegation requests received from the PCE. If threshold is reached,
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is RECOMMENDED. it is RECOMMENDED to log the issue.
7. IANA Considerations As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only
be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and
PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best
current practices in [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set aside in
[RFC8253]).
This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the 7. IANA Considerations
protocol elements defined in this document.
7.1. SRP Object Flags 7.1. SRP Object Flags
The SRP object is defined in [RFC8231] and the registry to manage the IANA maintains a registry called the "Path Computation Element
Flag field of the SRP object is requested in [RFC8281]. IANA is Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. It contains a subregistry called
requested to make the following allocation in the aforementioned the "SRP Object Flag Field" registry. This document requests IANA to
registry. allocate following code point in the "SRP Object Flag Field"
subregistry.
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBD LSP Control Request Flag (c-bit) This document TBD LSP-Control This document
8. Manageability Considerations 8. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440] All manageability requirements and considerations listed in [RFC5440]
and [RFC8231] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this and [RFC8231] apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this
document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in
this section apply. this section apply.
8.1. Control of Function and Policy 8.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCE or PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
the policy based on which it honor the request to control the LSPs. policy based on which it honors the request to control the LSPs.
This includes the handling of the case where an LSP control request
is received for an LSP that is currently delegated to some other PCE.
Further, the operator MAY be to be allowed to trigger the LSP control Further, the operator MAY be to be allowed to trigger the LSP control
request at the PCE. request for a particular LSP at the PCE. A PCE implementation SHOULD
also allow the operator to configure an exponentially increasing
timer to retry the control requests for which the PCE did not get a
response.
8.2. Information and Data Models 8.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include mechanism to trigger the LSP control request. include mechanism to trigger the LSP control request.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
skipping to change at page 8, line 22 skipping to change at page 8, line 41
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP
extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
described in this document can help the operator to request control described in this document can help the operator to request control
of the LSPs at a particular PCE. of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick to remind the authors to not use Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick to remind the authors to not use
suggested values in IANA section. suggested values in IANA section.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel and Haomian Zheng for the review comments.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC4657] Ash, J., Ed. and J. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 11, line 15
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses Jon Parker
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
Aswatnarayan Raghuram EMail: jdparker@cisco.com
Chaitanya Yadlapalli
AT&T AT&T
200 S Laurel Aevenue 200 S Laurel Aevenue
Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown NJ 07748
USA USA
EMail: ar2521@att.com EMail: cy098d@att.com
Al Goddard Authors' Addresses
Aswatnarayan Raghuram
AT&T AT&T
200 S Laurel Aevenue 200 S Laurel Aevenue
Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown, NJ 07748
USA USA
EMail: ag6941@att.com EMail: ar2521@att.com
Chaitanya Yadlapalli Al Goddard
AT&T AT&T
200 S Laurel Aevenue 200 S Laurel Aevenue
Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown, NJ 07748
USA USA
EMail: cy098d@att.com EMail: ag6941@att.com
Jay Karthik Jay Karthik
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
125 High Street 125 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
USA USA
EMail: jakarthi@cisco.com EMail: jakarthi@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive 2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com EMail: msiva@cisco.com
Jon Parker
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: jdparker@cisco.com
Mahendra Singh Negi Mahendra Singh Negi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: mahendrasingh@huawei.com EMail: mahendrasingh@huawei.com
 End of changes. 47 change blocks. 
109 lines changed or deleted 144 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/