< draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt   draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07.txt >
PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: August 9, 2019 J. Tantsura Expires: January 9, 2020 J. Tantsura
Apstra, Inc. Apstra, Inc.
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
S. Previdi S. Previdi
C. Li C. Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
February 5, 2019 July 8, 2019
Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks. Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06 draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
independence, SR utilizes a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID). It is independence, SR utilizes a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID). It is
possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE signaled Traffic Engineering possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE signaled Traffic Engineering
Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID) to Segment Routed Label Switching Path or binding Segment-ID (SID) to Segment Routed
(SR) Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID can be used (SR) Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID can be used
by an upstream node for steering traffic into the appropriate TE path by an upstream node for steering traffic into the appropriate TE path
to enforce SR policies. This document proposes an approach for to enforce SR policies. This document proposes an approach for
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
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 August 9, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE
paths respectively in this document. paths respectively in this document.
As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per Segment Routing Policy (SR Policy). Further, as per
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy], an SR Policy is a framework
that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node that enables instantiation of an ordered list of segments on a node
for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for for implementing a source routing policy with a specific intent for
traffic steering from that node. traffic steering from that node.
As described in [RFC8402], Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is bound As described in [RFC8402], Binding Segment Identifier (BSID) is bound
to an Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may involve to an Segment Routed (SR) Policy, instantiation of which may involve
a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to a list of SIDs. Any packets received with an active segment equal to
BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a BSID are steered onto the bound SR Policy. A BSID may be either a
local (SRLB) or a global (SRGB) SID. As per local (SRLB) or a global (SRGB) SID. As per Section 6.4 of
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] a BSID can also be
associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel to enable the use of associated with any type of interfaces or tunnel to enable the use of
a non-SR interface or tunnels as segments in a SID-list. a non-SR interface or tunnels as segments in a SID-list.
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a
stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs
delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 9
cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC
SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned. SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.
In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use
in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or
a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID
value. This TLV is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE, value. This TLV is intended for TE LSPs established using RSVP-TE,
SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the
TLV can carry a binding MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data- TLV can carry a binding MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-
plane) or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with plane) or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with
IPv6 data-plane). However, use of this TLV for carrying non-MPLS IPv6 data-plane). Binding value means either MPLS label or SID
binding SID will be described in separate document(s). Binding value throughout this document.
means either MPLS label or SID throughout this document.
Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283] Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283]
operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some
part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it
controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID
allocation and inform the PCC. See allocation and inform the PCC. See
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] for details. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] for details.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BT | Reserved | | BT | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Binding Value (variable length) ~ ~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
MPLS label binding as well as other types of future bindings (e.g., MPLS label binding as well as SRV6 Binding SID. It is formatted
SRv6 path). It is formatted according to the rules specified in according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
[RFC5440].
Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding
included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
values: values:
o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid. other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
The Length MUST be set to 6. The Length MUST be set to 6.
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 8, line 19
PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD ("Binding label/SID failure") and
Error Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID"). Error Value = TBD ("Unable to allocate the specified label/SID").
In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
(making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the (making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the
request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
5. Security Considerations 5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO
subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the
node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field
indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In
case of binding SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set
to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],
for NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S bit needs to be zero and the
Length MUST be 8. Further the M bit MUST be set. If these
conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be considered invalid and
a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").
6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO
subobject" for SRv6 SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be
set to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], for NT=0, the F bit MUST be 1, the S
bit needs to be zero and the Length MUST be 24. If these conditions
are not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message
is sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]).
7. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
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".
7.1. Huawei
o Organization: Huawei
o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
o Maturity Level: Production
o Coverage: Full
o Contact: mahendrasingh@huawei.com
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
[RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this [RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this
specification. No additional security measure is required. specification. No additional security measure is required.
As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network
controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. Note controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. A rouge
that if the security mechanisms of [RFC5440] and [RFC8281] are not PCE can manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for
used, then the protocol described in this document could be attacked some other LSPs that uses BSID in its SR-ERO.
via manipulation of BSID.
6. IANA Considerations Thus, 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]).
6.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 9. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] apply to
PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition,
requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.
9.1. Control of Function and Policy
A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
9.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440].
9.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols.
9.6. Impact On Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] also apply to PCEP extensions defined
in this document. Further, the mechanism described in this document
can help the operator to request control of the LSPs at a particular
PCE.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub- following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
TBD TE-PATH-BINDING This document TBD TE-PATH-BINDING This document
6.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV 10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
0 MPLS Label This document 0 MPLS Label This document
1 MPLS Label Stack This document 1 MPLS Label Stack This document
Entry Entry
2 SRv6 SID This document
6.2. PCEP Error Type and Value 10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value
This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error- message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows: subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
Error-Type Meaning Error-Type Meaning
---------- ------- ---------- -------
TBD Binding label/SID failure: TBD Binding label/SID failure:
Error-value = TBD: Invalid SID Error-value = TBD: Invalid SID
Error-value = TBD: Unable to allocate Error-value = TBD: Unable to allocate
the specified the specified
label/SID label/SID
7. Manageability Considerations 11. Acknowledgements
TBD
8. Acknowledgements
We like to thank Milos Fabian for his valuable comments. We like to thank Milos Fabian for his valuable comments.
9. References 12. References
9.1. 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>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[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
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
October 2018. March 2019.
9.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An [RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control", Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017, RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d.,
bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing bogdanov@google.com, b., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing
Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- Policy Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-
policy-02 (work in progress), October 2018. policy-03 (work in progress), May 2019.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress), BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018. June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Dhody, D., Karunanithi, S., Farrel, A., Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures
and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central
Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft- Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-00 (work in extension-for-pce-controller-01 (work in progress),
progress), November 2018. February 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
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
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 194 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/