< draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-08.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-09.txt >
PCE Working Group H. Chen, Ed. PCE Working Group H. Chen, Ed.
Internet-Draft Futurewei Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Zhuang, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Y. Zhuang, Ed.
Expires: January 8, 2020 Q. Wu Expires: February 17, 2020 Q. Wu
Huawei Huawei
D. Ceccarelli D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
July 7, 2019 August 16, 2019
PCEP Extensions for LSP scheduling with stateful PCE PCEP Extensions for LSP scheduling with stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-08 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-09
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a set of extensions needed to the stateful Path This document defines a set of extensions needed to the stateful Path
Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP), so as to Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP), so as to
enable Labeled Switched Path (LSP) scheduling for path computation enable Labeled Switched Path (LSP) scheduling for path computation
and LSP setup/deletion based on the actual network resource usage and and LSP setup/deletion based on the actual network resource usage and
the duration of a traffic service in a centralized network the duration of a traffic service in a centralized network
environment as stated in RFC 8413. environment as stated in RFC 8413.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 January 8, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2020.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
5.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2.1. SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.2. SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. The PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. The PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1. The PCRpt Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. The PCUpd Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.3. The PCInitiate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. The PCReq message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.4. The PCReq message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.5. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.5. The PCRep Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.6. The PCErr Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.6. The PCErr Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Manageability Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Manageability Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag field . . . . . . . . . 19 10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3. Schedule TLVs Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag field . . . . . . . . . 20
9.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10.3. Schedule TLVs Flag Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.4. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) defined in [RFC5440] is The Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) defined in [RFC5440] is
used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path Computation used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path Computation
Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable path computation of Multi- Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable path computation of Multi-
protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched
Paths (TE LSPs). Paths (TE LSPs).
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
PCUpd/PCInitiate message are unacceptable, it MUST report this error PCUpd/PCInitiate message are unacceptable, it MUST report this error
by including the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV (Section 7.3.3) with LSP error- by including the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV (Section 7.3.3) with LSP error-
value="Unacceptable parameters" in the LSP object (with scheduled value="Unacceptable parameters" in the LSP object (with scheduled
TLVs) in the PCRpt message to the PCE. TLVs) in the PCRpt message to the PCE.
The scheduled TLVs MUST be included in the LSP object for the The scheduled TLVs MUST be included in the LSP object for the
scheduled LSPs, if the TLV is missing, the receiving PCEP speaker scheduled LSPs, if the TLV is missing, the receiving PCEP speaker
MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object MUST send a PCErr message with Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object
missing) and Error-value TBD5 (Scheduled TLV missing). missing) and Error-value TBD5 (Scheduled TLV missing).
7. Security Considerations 7. Implementation Status
[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR : This whole section and the reference to RFC
7942 is to be removed before publication as an RFC]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
At the time of posting the -09 version of this document, there are no
known implementations of this mechanism. It is believed that two
vendors/organizations are considering prototype implementations, but
these plans are too vague to make any further assertions.
8. Security Considerations
This document defines LSP-SCHEDULING-CAPABILITY TLV and SCHED-LSP- This document defines LSP-SCHEDULING-CAPABILITY TLV and SCHED-LSP-
ATTRIBUTE TLV, the security considerations discussed in [RFC5440], ATTRIBUTE TLV, the security considerations discussed in [RFC5440],
[RFC8231], and [RFC8281] continue to apply. In some deployments the [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] continue to apply. In some deployments the
scheduling information could provide details about the network scheduling information could provide details about the network
operations that could be deemed as extra sensitive. Additionally, operations that could be deemed as extra sensitive. Additionally,
snooping of PCEP messages with such data or using PCEP messages for snooping of PCEP messages with such data or using PCEP messages for
network reconnaissance may give an attacker sensitive information network reconnaissance may give an attacker sensitive information
about the operations of the network. A single PCEP message can now about the operations of the network. A single PCEP message can now
instruct a PCC to set up and tear down an LSP every second for a instruct a PCC to set up and tear down an LSP every second for a
number of times. That single message could have a significant effect number of times. That single message could have a significant effect
on the network. Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP on the network. Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP
security mechanisms like TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] security mechanisms like TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925]
or [RFC8253]. The procedure based on Transport Layer Security (TLS) or [RFC8253]. The procedure based on Transport Layer Security (TLS)
in [RFC8253] is considered a security enhancement and thus is much in [RFC8253] is considered a security enhancement and thus is much
better suited for the sensitive information. PCCs may also need to better suited for the sensitive information. PCCs may also need to
apply some form of rate limit to the processing of scheduled LSPs. apply some form of rate limit to the processing of scheduled LSPs.
8. Manageability Consideration 9. Manageability Consideration
8.1. Control of Function and Policy 9.1. Control of Function and Policy
The LSP-Scheduling feature MUST BE controlled per tunnel by the The LSP-Scheduling feature MUST BE controlled per tunnel by the
active stateful PCE, the values for parameters like starting time, active stateful PCE, the values for parameters like starting time,
duration SHOULD BE configurable by customer applications and based on duration SHOULD BE configurable by customer applications and based on
the local policy at PCE. the local policy at PCE.
8.2. Information and Data Models 9.2. Information and Data Models
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the capability An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the capability
defined in this document. To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG defined in this document. To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG
module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended. module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 9.3. 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
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
8.4. Verify Correct Operations 9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440]. [RFC5440].
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. on other protocols.
8.6. Impact On Network Operations 9.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on network
operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440]. operations in addition to those already listed in [RFC5440].
9. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
9.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines the following new PCEP TLV. IANA maintains a This document defines the following new PCEP TLV. IANA maintains a
sub-registry "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" in the "Path Computation sub-registry "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" in the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make
the following allocations from this sub-registry. the following allocations from this sub-registry.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
TBD1 SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE This document TBD1 SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE This document
TBD2 SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE This document TBD2 SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE This document
skipping to change at page 19, line 43 skipping to change at page 20, line 24
----- ---- ---------- ----- ---- ----------
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 REPEAT-EVERY-DAY Section 5.2.2 1 REPEAT-EVERY-DAY Section 5.2.2
2 REPEAT-EVERY-WEEK Section 5.2.2 2 REPEAT-EVERY-WEEK Section 5.2.2
3 REPEAT-EVERY-MONTH Section 5.2.2 3 REPEAT-EVERY-MONTH Section 5.2.2
4 REPEAT-EVERY-YEAR Section 5.2.2 4 REPEAT-EVERY-YEAR Section 5.2.2
5 REPEAT-EVERY-REPEAT-TIME-LENGTH Section 5.2.2 5 REPEAT-EVERY-REPEAT-TIME-LENGTH Section 5.2.2
6-14 Unassigned 6-14 Unassigned
15 Reserved 15 Reserved
9.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag field 10.2. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag field
This document defines new bits in the Flags field in the STATEFUL- This document defines new bits in the Flags field in the STATEFUL-
PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object. IANA maintains a sub-registry PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object. IANA maintains a sub-registry
"STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" in the "Path Computation "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field" in the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. IANA is requested to make
the following allocations from this sub-registry. the following allocations from this sub-registry.
The following values are defined in this document: The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
TBD3 LSP-SCHEDULING-CAPABILITY (B-bit) This document TBD3 LSP-SCHEDULING-CAPABILITY (B-bit) This document
TBD4 PD-LSP-CAPABLITY (PD-bit) This document TBD4 PD-LSP-CAPABLITY (PD-bit) This document
9.3. Schedule TLVs Flag Field 10.3. Schedule TLVs Flag Field
IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named "Schedule TLVs IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry, named "Schedule TLVs
Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in the SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in the SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE
and SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLVs. New values are assigned by and SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLVs. New values are assigned by
Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the
following qualities: following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
skipping to change at page 20, line 23 skipping to change at page 21, line 4
Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in the SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field in the SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE
and SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLVs. New values are assigned by and SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLVs. New values are assigned by
Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the
following qualities: following qualities:
o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) o Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
o Capability description o Capability description
o Defining RFC o Defining RFC
The following values are defined in this document: The following values are defined in this document:
Bit Description Reference Bit Description Reference
0 R-bit This document 0 R-bit This document
1 C-bit This document 1 C-bit This document
2 A-bit This document 2 A-bit This document
9.4. PCEP-Error Object 10.4. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to allocate the following new error types to the IANA is requested to allocate the following new error types to the
existing error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and existing error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and
Values" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Values" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)
Numbers" registry: Numbers" registry:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
6 Mandatory Object missing 6 Mandatory Object missing
Error-value Error-value
TBD5: Scheduled TLV missing TBD5: Scheduled TLV missing
19 Invalid Operation 19 Invalid Operation
Error-value Error-value
TBD6: Attempted LSP Scheduling if the scheduling TBD6: Attempted LSP Scheduling if the scheduling
capability was not advertised capability was not advertised
10. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would also like to thank Rafal Szarecki, The authors of this document would also like to thank Rafal Szarecki,
Adrian Farrel, Cyril Margaria for the review and comments. Adrian Farrel, Cyril Margaria for the review and comments.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. 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
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 22, line 5 skipping to change at page 22, line 32
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232, Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture]
Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf- "Deterministic Networking Architecture", draft-ietf-
detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress), May 2019. detnet-architecture-13 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019. yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication
Procedures.", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-05 (work in Procedures.", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-06 (work in
progress), March 2019. progress), July 2019.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path [RFC7399] Farrel, A. and D. King, "Unanswered Questions in the Path
Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399, Computation Element Architecture", RFC 7399,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7399, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7399>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<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>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or deleted 76 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/