draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-00.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track D. King Intended status: Standards Track D. King
Expires: October 26, 2017 Lancaster University Expires: January 3, 2018 Lancaster University
April 24, 2017 July 2, 2017
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-00 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01
Abstract Abstract
IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new
registry is by IETF Consensus. registry is by IETF Consensus.
This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 October 26, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 50 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
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.
In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top- parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top-
level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as
described in [RFC5226]. Specifically, new assignments are made via described in [RFC8126]. Specifically, new assignments are made via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on
prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant
Working Group if one exists). Early allocation [RFC7120] provides Working Group if one exists). Early allocation [RFC7120] provides
some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved
for features that are considered appropriately stable. for features that are considered appropriately stable.
With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run
skipping to change at page 5, line 8 skipping to change at page 5, line 8
+------------+-------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy | | Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------+-------------------+
|65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | |65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+ +------------+-------------+-------------------+
7. Allocation Policy 7. Allocation Policy
The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is
"Experimental". As per [RFC5226], IANA does not record specific "Experimental". As per [RFC8126], IANA does not record specific
assignments for any particular use for this policy. assignments for any particular use for this policy.
As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or
RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and
experimental code points are freed up. experimental code points are freed up.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
10.2. Informative References [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 10.2. Informative References
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
Appendix A. Other Codepoints Appendix A. Other Codepoints
Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on
the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others, the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others,
Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead. Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 11 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/