draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04.txt   draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.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 31, 2018 A. Farrel Expires: July 14, 2018 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
November 27, 2017 January 10, 2018
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-04 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05
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 31, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform
path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs)
requests. requests.
Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],
[RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [RFC8281] describes the
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. 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 top- level parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top- level
registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This
top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object
and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub- and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-
registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation
[RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these code points, [RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these code points,
but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately
stable. stable.
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which
has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often
necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually 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 test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a
closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important
that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but
any future allocation. 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. As stated in [RFC3692], experiments
of the use of experimental codepoints. using these code points are not intended to be used in general
deployments and due care must be taken to ensure that two experiments
with the same code points are not run in the same environment. See
[RFC3692] for further discussion 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
Section 6.1. Section 6.1.
3. PCEP Objects 3. PCEP Objects
PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
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. Further, an implementation
accepting experimental code points needs to consider the security
aspects of the experimental extensions. [RFC6709] provide various
design considerations for protocol extensions (including those
designated as experimental).
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien
Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their Meuric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their
feedback and suggestions. feedback and suggestions.
We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this
document and providing comments with text suggestions. document and providing comments with text suggestions.
Thanks Brian Carpenter for the GENART review. Thanks Ben Niven-
Jenkins and Scott Bradner for RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews respectively.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative 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>.
[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-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 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 (work in Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
progress), October 2017. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 42 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/