rfc9357.original   rfc9357.txt 
PCE Q. Xiong Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Q. Xiong
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation Request for Comments: 9357 ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track 23 October 2022 Category: Standards Track January 2023
Expires: 26 April 2023 ISSN: 2070-1721
Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-09
Abstract Abstract
RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to Path Computation Element RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation
Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of
and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the
extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field with a extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a
length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already
been assigned in RFC 8231, RFC 8281, RFC 8623 and I-D.ietf-pce- been assigned.
binding-label-sid.
[Note to RFC Editor - Replace I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid to RFC
XXXX, once the RFC number is assigned.]
This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object
LSP object for an extended flag field. for an extended Flag field.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 April 2023. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9357.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used in this Document
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology
2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Requirements Language
3. PCEP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. PCEP Extension
3.1. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
3.2. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Processing
4. Advice for Specification of New Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Advice for Specification of New Flags
5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Backward Compatibility
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. LSP Object
6.1.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
6.1.2. LSP Extended Flags Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1.2. LSP Extended Flags Field
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Management Considerations
8. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Security Considerations
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Working Group Discussion
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contributors
Appendix A. WG Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) which is used between a PCE and a Path Computation Protocol (PCEP), which is used between a PCE and a Path Computation
Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of Multi-protocol Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of Multi-protocol
Label Switching for Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path Label Switching for Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched
(LSP). Paths (LSPs).
PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set
of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. One of the extensions is the LSP Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. One of the extensions is the LSP
object, which contains a flag field; bits in the flag field are used object, which contains a Flag field; bits in the Flag field are used
to indicate delegation, synchronization, removal, etc. to indicate delegation, synchronization, removal, etc.
As defined in [RFC8231], the length of the flag field is 12 bits and As defined in [RFC8231], the length of the Flag field is 12 bits, and
the values from bit 5 to bit 11 are used for operational, all of the bits have already been defined as shown in Table 1. This
administrative, remove, synchronize and delegate bits respectively. document extends the Flag field of the LSP object for other use by
The bit value 4 is assigned in [RFC8281] to identify the PCE- defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for an extended Flag field in
Initiated LSPs. The bits from 1 to 3 are assigned in [RFC8623] for the LSP object (see Section 3.1).
Explicit Route Object (ERO)-compression, fragmentation and Point-to-
Multipoint (P2MP) respectively. The bit 0 is assigned in
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] to PCE-allocation. All bits of the
Flag field have been assigned already. This document extends the
flag field of the LSP Object for other use.
This document proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for an +=====+======================+==================+
extended flag field in the LSP object. | Bit | Description | Reference |
+=====+======================+==================+
| 0 | PCE-allocation | [BIND-LABEL-SID] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 1 | ERO-compression | [RFC8623] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 2 | Fragmentation | [RFC8623] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 3 | P2MP | [RFC8623] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 4 | Create | [RFC8281] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 5-7 | Operational (3 bits) | [RFC8281] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 8 | Administrative | [RFC8281] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 9 | Remove | [RFC8281] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 10 | SYNC | [RFC8281] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
| 11 | Delegate | [RFC8281] |
+-----+----------------------+------------------+
2. Conventions used in this document Table 1: LSP Object Flag Field
2. Conventions Used in this Document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
The terminology is defined as [RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. The terminology is defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
2.2. Requirements Language 2.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. PCEP Extension 3. PCEP Extension
The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document The LSP object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231]. This document
proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for an extended flag defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for an extended Flag field in the
field in the LSP object. LSP object.
3.1. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 3.1. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
The format of the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV follows the format of all The format of the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV shown in Figure 1 follows the
PCEP TLVs as defined in [RFC5440] and is shown in Figure 1. format of all PCEP TLVs, as defined in [RFC5440].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD1 | Length | | Type=64 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// LSP Extended Flags // // LSP Extended Flags //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Figure 1: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Format Figure 1: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Format
Type (16 bits): TBD1. Type (16 bits): 64
Length (16 bits): indicates the length of the value portion in bytes. Length (16 bits): This indicates the length of the value portion in
It MUST be in multiples of 4 and greater than 0. bytes. It MUST be in multiples of 4 and greater than 0.
LSP Extended Flags: this contains an array of units of 32-bit flags LSP Extended Flags: This contains an array of units of 32-bit flags
numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit numbered from the most significant as bit zero, where each bit
represents one LSP flag (for operation, feature, or state). The LSP represents one LSP flag (for operation, feature, or state). The
Extended Flags field SHOULD use the minimal amount of space needed to LSP Extended Flags field SHOULD use the minimal amount of space
encode the flag bits. Currently, no bits are assigned. Unassigned needed to encode the flag bits. Currently, no bits are assigned.
bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
receipt. ignored on receipt.
As an example of usage of the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, the E-flag is As an example of usage of the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, the E-flag is
requested for entropy label configuration as proposed in requested for entropy label configuration, as proposed in
[I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position]. [PCEP-ENTROPY-LABEL].
3.2. Processing 3.2. Processing
The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags, to be The LSP Extended Flags field is an array of units of 32 flags that
allocated starting from the most significant bit. The bits of the are allocated starting from the most significant bit. The bits of
LSP Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents. This the LSP Extended Flags field will be assigned by future documents.
document does not define any flags. Flags that an implementation is This document does not define any flags. Flags that an
not supporting MUST be set to zero on transmission. Implementations implementation is not supporting MUST be set to zero on transmission.
that do not understand any particular flag MUST ignore the flag. Implementations that do not understand any particular flag MUST
ignore the flag.
Note that PCEP peers MUST handle varying lengths of the LSP-EXTENDED- Note that PCEP peers MUST handle varying lengths of the LSP-EXTENDED-
FLAG TLV. FLAG TLV.
If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of a length more If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of a length more
than it currently supports or understands, it MUST ignore the bits than it currently supports or understands, it MUST ignore the bits
beyond that length. beyond that length.
If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of a length less If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of a length less
than the one supported by the implementation, it MUST treat the bits than the one supported by the implementation, it MUST act as if the
beyond the length to be unset. bits beyond the length were not set.
4. Advice for Specification of New Flags 4. Advice for Specification of New Flags
Following the model provided in [RFC8786] Section 3.1, we provide the Following the model provided in Section 3.1 of [RFC8786], we provide
following advice for new specifications that define additional flags. the following advice for new specifications that define additional
Each such specification is expected to describe the interaction flags. Each such specification is expected to describe the
between these new flags and any existing flags. In particular, new interaction between these new flags and any existing flags. In
specifications are expected to explain how to handle the cases when particular, new specifications are expected to explain how to handle
both new and pre-existing flags are set. They are also expected to the cases when both new and preexisting flags are set. They are also
discuss any security implications of the additional flags (if any) expected to discuss any security implications of the additional flags
and their interactions with existing flags. (if any) and their interactions with existing flags.
5. Backward Compatibility 5. Backward Compatibility
The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV defined in this document does not introduce The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV defined in this document does not introduce
any backward compatibility issues. An implementation that does not any backward compatibility issues. An implementation that does not
understand or support the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV MUST ignore the TLV understand or support the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV MUST ignore the TLV,
as per [RFC5440]. It is expected that future documents that define as per [RFC5440]. Future documents that define bits in the LSP-
bits in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV will also define the error case EXTENDED-FLAG TLV are expected to also define the error handling
handling required for missing LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV if it MUST be required for cases in which the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV is missing when
present. it MUST be present.
Further, any additional bits in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV that are Further, any additional bits in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV that are
not understood by an implementation MUST be ignored. It is expected not understood by an implementation MUST be ignored. It is expected
that future documents that define bits in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV that future documents that define bits in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
will take that into consideration. will take take that into consideration.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. LSP Object 6.1. LSP Object
6.1.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators 6.1.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
IANA is requested to allocate the following TLV Type Indicator value IANA has allocated the following TLV Type Indicator value within the
within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry of the "Path Computation Element
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry: Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:
+=======+===================+=================+ +=======+===================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+===================+=================+ +=======+===================+===========+
| TBD1 | LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG | [This document] | | 64 | LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG | RFC 9357 |
+-------+-------------------+-----------------+ +-------+-------------------+-----------+
Table 1 Table 2
6.1.2. LSP Extended Flags Field 6.1.2. LSP Extended Flags Field
IANA is requested to create a new subregistry called "LSP-EXTENDED- IANA has created the "LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field" registry
FLAG TLV Flag Field", within the "Path Computation Element Protocol within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
(PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the LSP Extended Flags field of registry to manage the LSP Extended Flags field of the LSP-EXTENDED-
the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. New values are assigned by Standards FLAG TLV. New values are assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126].
Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
qualities:
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit) * Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)
* Capability description * Capability Description
* Defining RFC
No values are currently defined. Bits 0-31 should initially be
marked as "Unassigned". Bits with a higher ordinal than 31 will be
added to the registry in future documents if necessary.
7. Implementation Status
[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR : This whole section and the reference to
[RFC7942] is to be removed before publication as an RFC]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups * Reference
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
At the time of posting this version of this document, there are no No values are currently defined. Bits 0-31 are initially marked as
known implementations of this TLV. It is believed that this would be "Unassigned". Bits with a higher ordinal than 31 will be added to
implemented alongside the documents that allocate flags in the TLV. the registry in future documents if necessary.
8. Management Considerations 7. Management Considerations
Implementations receiving set LSP Extended Flags that they do not Implementations receiving set LSP Extended Flags that they do not
recognize MAY log this. That could be helpful for diagnosing recognize MAY log this. That could be helpful for diagnosing
backward compatibility issues with future features that utilize those backward compatibility issues with future features that utilize those
flags. flags.
9. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
[RFC8231] sets out security considerations for PCEP when used for [RFC8231] sets out security considerations for PCEP when used for
communication with a stateful PCE. This document does not change communication with a stateful PCE. This document does not change
those considerations. For LSP Object processing, see [RFC8231]. those considerations. For LSP object processing, see [RFC8231].
The flags for the LSP object and their associated security The flags for the LSP object and their associated security
considerations are specified in [RFC8231], [RFC8281], [RFC8623], and considerations are specified in [RFC8231], [RFC8281], [RFC8623], and
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid]. [BIND-LABEL-SID].
This document provides for the future addition of flags in the LSP This document provides for the future addition of flags in the LSP
Object. Any future document that specifies new flags must also object. Any future document that specifies new flags must also
discuss any associated security implications. No additional security discuss any associated security implications. No additional security
issues are raised in this document beyond those that exist in the issues are raised in this document beyond those that exist in the
referenced documents. Note that the [RFC8231] recommends that the referenced documents. Note that [RFC8231] recommends that the
stateful PCEP extension are authenticated and encrypted using stateful PCEP extension be authenticated and encrypted using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] [PCEPS-TLS1.3], as per the
and best current practices in [RFC7525]. Assuming that recommendations and best current practices in [RFC9325]. Assuming
recommendation is followed, then the flags will be protected by TLS. that the recommendation is followed, then the flags will be protected
by TLS.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Adrian Farrel, Aijun
Wang, and Gyan Mishra for their review, suggestions and comments to
this document.
11. Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
12. References 9. References
12.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://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-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at line 315
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid] [BIND-LABEL-SID]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Previdi, S.,
and C. L. (editor), "Carrying Binding Label/Segment and C. Li, Ed., "Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier
Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.", Work in (SID) in PCE-based Networks.", Work in Progress, Internet-
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-binding-label- Draft, draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15, 20 March 2022,
sid-15, 20 March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15.txt>. binding-label-sid-15>.
[I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position] [PCEP-ENTROPY-LABEL]
Xiong, Q., Peng, S., and F. Qin, "PCEP Extension for SR- Xiong, Q., Peng, S., and F. Qin, "PCEP Extension for SR-
MPLS Entropy Label Position", Work in Progress, Internet- MPLS Entropy Label Position", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-08, 29 August Draft, draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-08, 29 August
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-pce- 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-
entropy-label-position-08.txt>. pce-entropy-label-position-08>.
[PCEPS-TLS1.3]
Dhody, D., Turner, S., and R. Housley, "PCEPS with TLS
1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-dhody-pce-
pceps-tls13-01, 20 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dhody-pce-
pceps-tls13-01>.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088, Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, DOI 10.17487/RFC5088,
January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>. January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088>.
[RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. [RFC5089] Le Roux, JL., Ed., Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R.
Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Zhang, "IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation
Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089, Element (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5089, DOI 10.17487/RFC5089,
January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>. January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (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", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at line 371
[RFC8623] Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Stateful [RFC8623] Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Stateful
Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for
Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8623, DOI 10.17487/RFC8623, June 2019, (LSPs)", RFC 8623, DOI 10.17487/RFC8623, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8623>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8623>.
[RFC8786] Farrel, A., "Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE [RFC8786] Farrel, A., "Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE
Request Parameters Flags", RFC 8786, DOI 10.17487/RFC8786, Request Parameters Flags", RFC 8786, DOI 10.17487/RFC8786,
May 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8786>. May 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8786>.
Appendix A. WG Discussion [RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
The WG discussed the idea of a fixed length (with 32 bits) for LSP- Appendix A. Working Group Discussion
EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Though 32 bits would be sufficient for quite a
while, the use of variable length with a multiple of 32-bits allows The working group discussed the idea of a fixed length (with 32 bits)
for future extensibility where we would never run out of flags and for the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Though 32 bits would be sufficient
there would not be a need to define yet another TLV in the future. for quite a while, the use of variable length with a multiple of 32
Further, note that [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] use the same approach for bits allows for future extensibility where we would never run out of
the PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV and are found to be useful. flags and there would not be a need to define yet another TLV in the
future. Further, note that [RFC5088] and [RFC5089] use the same
approach for the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV and are found to be useful.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Adrian Farrel, Aijun
Wang, and Gyan Mishra for their reviews, suggestions, and comments
for this document.
Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Author's Address Author's Address
Quan Xiong Quan Xiong
ZTE Corporation ZTE Corporation
No.6 Huashi Park Rd No.6 Huashi Park Rd
Wuhan Wuhan
Hubei, 430223 Hubei, 430223
China China
Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
 End of changes. 55 change blocks. 
229 lines changed or deleted 213 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.