draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02.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 Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King
Expires: January 3, 2018 Lancaster University Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University
July 2, 2017 Expires: February 24, 2018 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks
August 23, 2017
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02
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 Review.
This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
PCEP.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. assigned for Experimental Use.
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 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 January 3, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 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
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Handling of unknown experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Other Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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.
Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.
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 Review as
described in [RFC8126]. Specifically, new assignments are made via described in [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation [RFC7120] provides
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on
prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant
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
experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only experiments, it is important that the value won't collide not only
with existing codepoints but any future allocation. with existing codepoints but any future allocation.
This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies
subregistries for experimental usage. for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion
of the use of experimental codepoints.
2. PCEP Messages 2. PCEP Messages
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets
with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255. aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in
Section 6.1.
3. PCEP Objects 3. PCEP Objects
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This
with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255. document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as
described in Section 6.2.
4. PCEP TLVs 4. PCEP TLVs
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets
with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535. aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described
in Section 6.2.
5. Handling of unknown experimentation 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation
A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message, A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message,
that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of
[RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability [RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability
not supported). not supported).
A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will
reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with
Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined as Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described
per [RFC5440]. in [RFC5440].
As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would
be ignored. be ignored.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>. at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
6.1. New PCEP Messages 6.1. New PCEP Messages
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
(see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). (see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this
following allocations: registry to read as follows:
+---------+-------------+-------------------+ 0-251 IETF Review
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy | 252-255 Experimental Use
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 246-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry
+---------+-------------+-------------------+ accordingly.
6.2. New PCEP Objects 6.2. New PCEP Objects
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
(see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). (see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this
following allocations: registry to read as follows:
+---------+-------------+-------------------+ 0-247 IETF Review
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy | 248-255 Experimental Use
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry
+---------+-------------+-------------------+ accordingly.
6.3. New PCEP TLVs 6.3. New PCEP TLVs
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this
following allocations: registry to read as follows:
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
|65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
7. Allocation Policy
The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is 0-65503 IETF Review
"Experimental". As per [RFC8126], IANA does not record specific 65504-65535 Experimental Use
assignments for any particular use for this policy.
As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or IANA is also requested to mark the values 65504-65535 in the registry
RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and accordingly.
experimental code points are freed up.
8. Security Considerations 7. 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
specific security measures. specific security measures.
9. Acknowledgments [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points
introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations
accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse
and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come,
accidentally from another experiment.
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Adrian 8. Acknowledgments
Farrel, Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff,
and Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.
10. References The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura,
Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and
Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.
10.1. Normative References 9. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 9.1. Normative References
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<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, <https://www.rfc-
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
10.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
Appendix A. Other Codepoints [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-
pce-21 (work in progress), June 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 (work in
progress), June 2017.
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries
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.
Authors' Addresses Authors' 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
Daniel King Daniel King
Lancaster University Lancaster University
UK UK
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
UK
EMail: afarrel@juniper.net
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
91 lines changed or deleted 119 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/