draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04.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: May 16, 2018 A. Farrel Expires: May 31, 2018 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
November 12, 2017 November 27, 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-03 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04
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 top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints
and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries
for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for
each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. each of these sub-registries is IETF Review.
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 May 16, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 31, 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
(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
skipping to change at page 4, line 16 skipping to change at page 4, line 16
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).
If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental
object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message
type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of
[RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) [RFC5440]. Message-specific behavior may be specified (e.g.,
message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in a
Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) Request message).
[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
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 7 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/