< draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10.txt >
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: October 25, 2019 R. Singh Expires: December 23, 2019 R. Singh
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
R. Gandhi R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
L. Fang L. Fang
Expedia, Inc. Expedia, Inc.
April 23, 2019 June 21, 2019
PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with
Stateful PCE Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10
Abstract Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE
LSPs) using PCEP. LSPs) using PCEP.
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements for PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Requirements for PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Architectural Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Auto-Bandwidth Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Auto-bandwidth Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Auto-bandwidth Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Scaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Scaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Extensions to the PCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1.1. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.1. Sample-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.1. Sample-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2. Adjustment Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.2. Adjustment Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2.1. Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.2.1. Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2.2. Down-Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.2.2. Down-Adjustment-Interval sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.3. Adjustment Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.3. Adjustment Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.3.1. Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.3.1. Adjustment-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.3.2. Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . 16 5.2.3.2. Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . 16
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 11
5.2.4.2. Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2.4.2. Maximum-Bandwidth sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2.5. Overflow and Underflow Conditions . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2.5. Overflow and Underflow Conditions . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.5.1. Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2.5.1. Overflow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.5.2. Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . . 20 5.2.5.2. Overflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . . 20
5.2.5.3. Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2.5.3. Underflow-Threshold sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.5.4. Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . . 21 5.2.5.4. Underflow-Threshold-Percentage sub-TLV . . . . . . 21
5.3. BANDWIDTH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.3. BANDWIDTH Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.4. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.5. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.5. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.6. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.6. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.7. The PCNtf Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.7. The PCNtf Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field . . . . . . . . . 26 8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field . . . . . . . . . 26
8.3. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.3. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.4. Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.4. Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8.5. Notification Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.5. Notification Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 39
if the actual traffic flowing through the LSP is higher than the if the actual traffic flowing through the LSP is higher than the
configured or current reserved bandwidth of the LSP, it can configured or current reserved bandwidth of the LSP, it can
potentially cause congestion or packet loss in the network. The potentially cause congestion or packet loss in the network. The
initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including
zero), in practice, it can be operator expected value based on design zero), in practice, it can be operator expected value based on design
and planning. The head-end Label Switch Router (LSR) monitors the and planning. The head-end Label Switch Router (LSR) monitors the
actual traffic flowing through the LSP and uses that information to actual traffic flowing through the LSP and uses that information to
adjust the bandwidth reservation of the LSP in the network. adjust the bandwidth reservation of the LSP in the network.
Bandwidth adjustment must not cause disruption to the traffic flow Bandwidth adjustment must not cause disruption to the traffic flow
carried by the LSP. One way to achieve this is to use the carried by the LSP. One way to achieve this is to use the
make-before-break (MBB) signaling method. make-before-break signaling method [RFC3209].
4.2. Auto-bandwidth Theory of Operation 4.2. Auto-bandwidth Theory of Operation
This section describes the Auto-Bandwidth feature in a general way. This section describes the Auto-Bandwidth feature in a general way.
When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate
is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be
configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the
PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The traffic rate PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The traffic rate
samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval period (in the samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval period (in the
Up or Down direction) (which can be configured by an operator and the Up or Down direction) (which can be configured by an operator and the
skipping to change at page 10, line 24 skipping to change at page 10, line 24
signaling churn in the network. The Auto-bandwidth application signaling churn in the network. The Auto-bandwidth application
algorithm is thus advised to take this into consideration before algorithm is thus advised to take this into consideration before
adjusting the LSP bandwidth. Operators are advised to set the values adjusting the LSP bandwidth. Operators are advised to set the values
of various auto-bandwidth adjustment parameters appropriate for the of various auto-bandwidth adjustment parameters appropriate for the
deployed LSP scale. deployed LSP scale.
If a PCE gets overwhelmed, it can notify the PCC to temporarily If a PCE gets overwhelmed, it can notify the PCC to temporarily
suspend the reporting of the new LSP bandwidth to be adjusted (see suspend the reporting of the new LSP bandwidth to be adjusted (see
Section 5.7 of this document). Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed Section 5.7 of this document). Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed
due to signaling churn, it can notify the PCE to temporarily suspend due to signaling churn, it can notify the PCE to temporarily suspend
new LSP setup requests. new LSP setup requests (see Section 5.7 of this document).
5. Extensions to the PCEP 5. PCEP Extensions
5.1. Capability Advertisement 5.1. Capability Advertisement
During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC) During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP speakers (PCE or PCC)
advertise their support of Automatic Bandwidth adjustment feature. A advertise their support of Automatic Bandwidth adjustment feature. A
PCEP speaker includes the "Auto-Bandwidth Capability" TLV, in the PCEP speaker includes the "Auto-Bandwidth Capability" TLV, in the
OPEN Object to advertise its support for PCEP Auto-Bandwidth OPEN Object to advertise its support for PCEP Auto-Bandwidth
extensions. The presence of the "Auto-Bandwidth Capability" TLV in extensions. The presence of the "Auto-Bandwidth Capability" TLV in
the OPEN Object indicates that the Automatic Bandwidth feature is the OPEN Object indicates that the Automatic Bandwidth feature is
supported as described in this document. supported as described in this document.
skipping to change at page 23, line 48 skipping to change at page 23, line 48
attributes communicated by the PCE, and using the local values for attributes communicated by the PCE, and using the local values for
the unspecified parameters. After the successful instantiation of the unspecified parameters. After the successful instantiation of
the LSP, PCC automatically delegates the LSP to the PCE and generates the LSP, PCC automatically delegates the LSP to the PCE and generates
a PCRpt message to provide the status report for the LSP. a PCRpt message to provide the status report for the LSP.
For both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs, when the LSP is For both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs, when the LSP is
delegated to a PCE for the very first time as well as after the delegated to a PCE for the very first time as well as after the
successful delegation, the BANDWIDTH object of type 1 is used to successful delegation, the BANDWIDTH object of type 1 is used to
specify the requested bandwidth in the PCRpt message. specify the requested bandwidth in the PCRpt message.
For all LSPs with Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled, AUTO-BANDWIDTH-
ATTRIBUTES TLV MUST be included in the LSPA object of the PCRpt
message.
The RBNF definition of the PCRpt message [RFC8231] is unchanged by The RBNF definition of the PCRpt message [RFC8231] is unchanged by
this document. this document.
5.7. The PCNtf Message 5.7. The PCNtf Message
As per [RFC5440], the PCEP Notification message (PCNtf) can be sent As per [RFC5440], the PCEP Notification message (PCNtf) can be sent
by a PCEP speaker to notify its peer of a specific event. by a PCEP speaker to notify its peer of a specific event.
A PCEP speaker (PCE or PCC) SHOULD notify its PCEP peer (PCC or PCE) A PCEP speaker (PCE or PCC) SHOULD notify its PCEP peer (PCC or PCE)
when it is in overwhelmed state due to the auto-bandwidth feature. when it is in overwhelmed state due to the auto-bandwidth feature.
Upon receipt of such notification, the peer SHOULD NOT send any PCEP Upon receipt of such notification, the peer SHOULD NOT send any PCEP
messages related to auto-bandwidth adjustment. If a PCEP message messages related to auto-bandwidth adjustment. If a PCEP message
related to auto-bandwidth is received during in overwhelmed state, it related to auto-bandwidth is received during in overwhelmed state, it
MUST be ignored. MUST be ignored.
skipping to change at page 24, line 40 skipping to change at page 24, line 34
notify its peer by sending a PCNtf message with Notification Type notify its peer by sending a PCNtf message with Notification Type
= TBD3 (Auto-bandwidth Overwhelm State) and Notification Value = 2 = TBD3 (Auto-bandwidth Overwhelm State) and Notification Value = 2
(Clearing auto-bandwidth overwhelm state). (Clearing auto-bandwidth overwhelm state).
When Auto-Bandwidth feature is deployed, a PCE can send this When Auto-Bandwidth feature is deployed, a PCE can send this
notification to PCC when a PCC is reporting frequent auto-bandwidth notification to PCC when a PCC is reporting frequent auto-bandwidth
adjustments. If a PCC is overwhelmed with re-signaling, it can also adjustments. If a PCC is overwhelmed with re-signaling, it can also
notify the PCE to not adjust the LSP bandwidth while in overwhelm notify the PCE to not adjust the LSP bandwidth while in overwhelm
state. state.
6. Security Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
This document defines AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV and AUTO-
BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs which do not add any new security
concerns beyond those already discussed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]
for stateful PCE operations. 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]).
7. Manageability Considerations
7.1. Control of Function and Policy 6.1. Control of Function and Policy
The Auto-Bandwidth feature SHOULD be controlled per LSP (at PCC The Auto-Bandwidth feature SHOULD be controlled per LSP (at PCC
(head-end of the LSP) or PCE) and the values for auto-bandwidth (head-end of the LSP) or PCE) and the values for auto-bandwidth
parameters e.g. sample-interval, adjustment-interval (up/down), parameters e.g. sample-interval, adjustment-interval (up/down),
minimum-bandwidth, maximum-bandwidth, adjustment-threshold (up/down) minimum-bandwidth, maximum-bandwidth, adjustment-threshold (up/down)
SHOULD be configurable by an operator. SHOULD be configurable by an operator.
7.2. Information and Data Models 6.2. Information and Data Models
A Management Information Base (MIB) module for modeling PCEP is A Management Information Base (MIB) module for modeling PCEP is
described in [RFC7420]. However, one may prefer the mechanism for described in [RFC7420]. However, one may prefer the mechanism for
configuration using YANG data model [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. These configuration using YANG data model [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. These
SHOULD be enhanced to provide controls and indicators for support of could be enhanced to provide controls and indicators for support of
auto-bandwidth feature. Support for various configuration knobs as auto-bandwidth feature. Support for various configuration knobs as
well as counters of messages sent/received containing the TLVs well as counters of messages sent/received containing the TLVs
defined in this document SHOULD be added. defined in this document could be added.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness The 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
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations 6.4. Verify Correct Operations
The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
operation verification requirements in addition to those already operation verification requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new
requirements on other protocols. requirements on other protocols.
7.6. Impact On Network Operations 6.6. Impact On Network Operations
In order to avoid any unacceptable impact on network operations, an In order to avoid any unacceptable impact on network operations, an
implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the number of implementation SHOULD allow a limit to be placed on the number of
LSPs that can be enabled with auto-bandwidth feature. An LSPs that can be enabled with auto-bandwidth feature. An
implementation MAY allow a limit to be placed on the rate of auto- implementation MAY allow a limit to be placed on the rate of auto-
bandwidth related messages sent by a PCEP speaker and received by a bandwidth related messages sent by a PCEP speaker and received by a
peer. An implementation MAY also allow sending a notification when a peer. An implementation MAY also allow sending a notification when a
PCEP speaker is overwhelmed or the rate of messages reach a PCEP speaker is overwhelmed or the rate of messages reach a
threshold. threshold.
7. Security Considerations
This document defines AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV and AUTO-
BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES sub-TLVs which do not add any new security
concerns beyond those already discussed in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]
for stateful PCE operations. 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]).
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 8.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs; IANA is requested This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs; IANA is requested
to make the following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" to make the following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: sub-registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
TBD2 AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY [This document] TBD2 AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY [This document]
TBD1 AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES [This document] TBD1 AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES [This document]
8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field 8.2. AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field
skipping to change at page 28, line 39 skipping to change at page 28, line 39
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/infor/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/infor/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE, Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE,
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>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC
7420, December 2014. 7420, December 2014.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R. and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R. and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations
skipping to change at page 30, line 8 skipping to change at page 30, line 8
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang
(work in progress). (work in progress).
[IEEE.754.1985] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, [IEEE.754.1985] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
"Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE "Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE
Standard 754, August 1985. Standard 754, August 1985.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Robert Varga, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Authors would like to thank Robert Varga, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja
Paul, Sandeep Boina, Avantika, JP Vasseur, Himanshu Shah and Adrian Paul, Sandeep Boina, Avantika, JP Vasseur, Himanshu Shah, Jonathan
Farrel for their useful comments and suggestions. Hardwick and Adrian Farrel for their useful comments and suggestions.
Contributors' Addresses Contributors' Addresses
He Zekun He Zekun
Tencent Holdings Ltd, Tencent Holdings Ltd,
Shenzhen P.R.China Shenzhen P.R.China
Email: kinghe@tencent.com Email: kinghe@tencent.com
Xian Zhang Xian Zhang
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 46 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/