PCE Working Group                                               D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved)                                      D. King
Intended status: Standards Track                                 D. King
Expires: January 3, 2018                    Lancaster University
                                                            July 2,
Expires: February 24, 2018                                     A. Farrel
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                         August 23, 2017

   Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element
                     communication Protocol (PCEP)
                 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01
                 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02

Abstract

   IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
   communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
   IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
   codepoints and sub-registries.  The allocation policy for each new
   registry is by IETF Consensus. Review.

   This document seeks updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies
   for these three registries to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
   PCEP.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted the code points as described in [RFC2119].
   assigned for Experimental Use.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, February 24, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   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

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Handling of unknown experimentation Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  New PCEP Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.3.  New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10.
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     10.1.
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     10.2.
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5   6
   Appendix A.  Other Codepoints . . . PCEP Registries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6   7

1.  Introduction

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   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
   parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).  IANA established a new top-
   level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
   The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus Review as
   described in [RFC8126].  Specifically, new assignments are made via
   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  Also, early allocation [RFC7120] provides
   some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved
   for features that are considered appropriately stable.

   With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
   with PCEP.  It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
   constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
   function, even when testing in a closed environment.  In order to run
   experiment,
   experiments, it is important that the value won't collide not only
   with existing codepoints but any future allocation.

   This document thus set apart updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies
   for these three registries to mark some codepoints in PCEP registry and
   subregistries of the code points as
   assigned for Experimental Use.  See [RFC3692] for further discussion
   of the use of experimental usage. codepoints.

2.  PCEP Messages

   Some codepoints

   PCEP message types are requested in the range 0 to be set 255.  This document sets
   aside message types 252-255 for experimentation
   with new PCEP messages.  The suggested range is 246-255. as described in
   Section 6.1.

3.  PCEP Objects

   Some codepoints

   PCEP objects are requested identified by values in the range 0 to be set 255.  This
   document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation
   with new PCEP objects.  The suggested range is 224-255. as
   described in Section 6.2.

4.  PCEP TLVs

   Some codepoints

   PCEP TLV type codes are requested in the range 0 to be set 65535.  This document sets
   aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation
   with new PCEP TLVs.  The suggested range is 65280-65535. as described
   in Section 6.2.

5.  Handling of unknown experimentation Unknown Experimentation

   A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message,
   that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of
   [RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability
   not supported).

   A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST will
   reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with
   Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined object" as
   per described
   in [RFC5440].

   As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would
   be ignored.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
   at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.

6.1.  New PCEP Messages

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
   (see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document,

   IANA is requested to make change the
   following allocations:

               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               |   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               | 246-255 | Unassigned  | registration procedure for this
   registry to read as follows:

      0-251   IETF Review
      252-255 Experimental Use  |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+

   IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry
   accordingly.

6.2.  New PCEP Objects

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
   (see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document,

   IANA is requested to make change the
   following allocations:

               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               |   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+
               | 224-255 | Unassigned  | registration procedure for this
   registry to read as follows:

      0-247   IETF Review
      248-255 Experimental Use  |
               +---------+-------------+-------------------+

   IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry
   accordingly.

6.3.  New PCEP TLVs

   Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
   PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).

   Upon approval of this document,

   IANA is requested to make change the
   following allocations:

             +------------+-------------+-------------------+
             |      Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
             +------------+-------------+-------------------+
             |65280-65535 | Unassigned  | registration procedure for this
   registry to read as follows:

      0-65503     IETF Review
      65504-65535 Experimental Use  |
             +------------+-------------+-------------------+

7.  Allocation Policy

   The allocation policy for the

   IANA request in Section 6 is
   "Experimental".  As per [RFC8126], IANA does not record specific
   assignments for any particular use for this policy.

   As also requested to mark the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or
   RFC publication happens, values 65504-65535 in the IANA defined codepoints are used and
   experimental code points are freed up.

8. registry
   accordingly.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
   the existing protocol.  Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
   specific security measures.

9.

   [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.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Adrian
   Farrel,
   Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and
   Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.

10.

9.  References

10.1.

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              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
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [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>.

10.2.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

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
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

   [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 Codepoints PCEP Registries

   Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on
   the essentials in the scope of this documents.  For others,
   Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead.

Authors' Addresses

   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

   Daniel King
   Lancaster University
   UK

   EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk

   Adrian Farrel
   Juniper Networks
   UK

   EMail: afarrel@juniper.net