draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King
Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University
Expires: February 24, 2018 A. Farrel Expires: May 16, 2018 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
August 23, 2017 November 12, 2017
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP) communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
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 top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints
codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries
registry is by IETF Review. for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for
each of these sub-registries is IETF Review.
This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies
for these three registries to mark some of the code points as for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
assigned for Experimental Use. 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 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 February 24, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 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 (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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs)
requests.
Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. 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 top- level
level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This
The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review as top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object
described in [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation [RFC7120] provides and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-
some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation
for features that are considered appropriately stable. [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 Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which
with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often
constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually
function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a
experiments, it is important that the value won't collide not only closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important
with existing codepoints but any future allocation. that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but
any future allocation.
This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies
for these three registries to mark some of the code points as for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion
of the use of experimental codepoints. of the use of experimental codepoints.
2. PCEP Messages 2. PCEP Messages
PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets
aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in
skipping to change at page 4, line 12 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described
in Section 6.2. 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, will If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental
reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message
Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path
in [RFC5440]. Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of
[RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd)
message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate
Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP
message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that
message.
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
7. 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.
[RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points
introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations
accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse
and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come,
accidentally from another experiment. accidentally, from another experiment.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien
Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their
Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions. feedback and suggestions.
We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this
document and providing comments with text suggestions.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[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-11 (work in
progress), October 2017.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
editor.org/info/rfc3692>. <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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <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 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries
Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an
the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others, Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV
Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead. sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an
experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another
PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new
experimental object or TLV 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
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 72 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/