<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->

<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-cbrt-pce-stateful-local-protection-01" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the 
         full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <title abbrev="PCE-Stateful RSVP-TE Local-Protection">PCEP Extensions for RSVP-TE Local-Protection with PCE-Stateful
    </title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

    <author fullname="Colby Barth" initials="C" surname="Barth">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

          <city>Sunnyvale</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code></code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone></phone>

        <email>cbarth@juniper.net</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Raveendra Torvi" initials="R" surname="Torvi">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>

          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

          <city>Sunnyvale</city>

          <region>CA</region>

          <code></code>

          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <phone></phone>

        <email>rtorvi@juniper.net</email>

        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="June" year="2018" />

    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill 
         in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill 
	 in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is 
	 necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the 
	 purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
	 specify just the year. -->

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>General</area>

    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
         IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	 If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
         which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>template</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t> 
    <xref target ="RFC8231"> Stateful PCE </xref>  
    can apply global concurrent
   optimizations to optimize LSP placement.  In a deployment where a PCE
   is used to compute all the paths, it may be beneficial for the
   local protection paths to also be computed by the PCE.  This document
   defines extensions needed for the setup and management of RSVP-TE
   protection paths by the PCE.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section anchor="sec-1" title="  Introduction">
<t>
   <xref target="RFC5440"></xref> describes the Path Computation Element Protocol PCEP.  
   PCEP defines the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and
   a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE, enabling
   computation of Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic
   Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.
</t><t>
   <xref target ="RFC8231"> Stateful PCE </xref>  
   specifies a set of
   extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of paths such as MPLS
   TE LSPs between and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
   <xref target="RFC4657"></xref>.  It includes mechanisms to effect LSP state
   synchronization between PCCs and PCEs and allow delegation of control of LSPs
   to PCEs.
</t><t>
    In a network where all LSPs have control delegated to a PCE, the PCE
    can apply global concurrent optimization to optimize LSP placement.
    The PCE can also control the timing and sequence of path computation
    and applying path changes. In a deployment where a PCE is used to
    compute all the paths, it may be beneficial for the protection paths
    to also be controlled through the PCE.  This document defines
    extensions needed for the setup and management of protection paths by
    the PCE.
</t><t>
    Benefits of stateful synchronization and control of the protection
    paths include:
</t><t>
    o  Better control over traffic after a failure and more
    deterministic path computation of protection paths.  The PCE can
    optimize the protection path based on data not available to the
    PCC, for instance the PCE can make sure the protection path will
    not violate the delay specified by
    [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware].
</t><t>
    o  Satisfy more complex constraints and diversity requirements, such
    as maintaining diverse paths for LSPs as well as their local protection
    paths.
</t><t>
    o  Given the PCE's global view of network resources, act as a form of
    LSP admission control into a protection path to ensure links are
    not overloaded during failure events.
</t><t>
    o  On a PLR with multiple available protection routes, allows the PCE
    to map LSPs to all available protection routes versus a single
    best protection route.
</t><t>
    o  Most of the benefits stated in the stateful PCE applicability
    draft [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-04] apply equally to
    protection paths.
</t> <t>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-2" title="  Terminology">
<t>
   This document uses the following terms defined in
   <xref target="RFC5440"></xref> PCC PCE, PCEP Peer.
</t>
<t>
   This document uses the following terms defined in
    <xref target="RFC8231"></xref> Stateful PCE, Delegation, Delegation
   Timeout Interval, LSP State Report, LSP Update Request.
</t>
<t>
   The message formats in this document are specified using Routing
   Backus-Naur Format (RBNF) encoding as specified in RFC5511.
</t>
<t>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-3" title="  Architectural Overview">
<t>
</t>
<section anchor="sec-3.2" title="  Local Protection Overview">
<t>
   Local protection refers to the ability to locally route around
   failure of an LSP.  Two types of local protection are possible:
</t><t>
   (1)  1:1 protection - the protection path protects a single LSP.
</t><t>
   (2)  N:1 protection - the protection path protects multiple LSPs
        traversing the protected resource.
</t><t>
   It is assumed that the PCE knows what resources require protection
   through mechanisms outside the scope of this document.  In a PCE
   controlled deployment, support of 1:1 protection has limited
   applicability, and can be achieved as a degenerate case of 1:N
   protection.  For this reason, local protection will be discussed
   only for the N:1 case.
</t><t>
   Local protection requires the setup of a bypass at the PLR.  This
   bypass can be PCC-initiated and delegated, or PCE-initiated.  In
   either case, the PLR MUST maintain a PCEP session to the PCE.  A
   bypass identifier (the name of the bypass) is required for
   disambiguation as multiple bypasses are possible at the PLR. 
   There two types Bypass LSPs mappings:
</t><t>
   (1) Independent Bypass LSP Mapping: In this case Bypass LSP  mapping
       is handled by a local policy on PCC and the PCC reports all mappings
       to the PCE.  In other words, bypass LSP(s) are mapped to any protected
       LSP(s) that satisfy PCC local policy.
</t><t>
   (2) Dependent Bypass LSP mapping: Mapping of LSPs to bypass is
       done through a new TLV, the LOCALLY-PROTECTED-LSPS TLV in the
       LSP Update message from PCE to PLR.  See section Section 4.3.
       When an LSP requiring protection is set up through the PLR,
       the PLR checks if it has a mapping to a bypass and only provides
       protection if such a mapping exists.  The status of bypasses and
       what LSPs are protected by them is communicated to the PCE via
       LSP Status Report messages.
</t><t>
</t>

</section>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-4" title="  Extensions for the LSPA object">
<t>
</t>
<section anchor="sec-4.1" title="  The Preference TLV">
<t>
   When provisioning a PCC, the PCE can influence primary to bypass LSP 
   association of the PCC using the preference TLV.  Bypass LSPs with a 
   higher preference are used first during primary LSP association.  
   Bypass LSPs with identical preferences are used for primary association 
   according to local PCC selection.
</t><t>
   The format of the IPv4 Preference TLV is shown in the following figure:
</t>
<figure> <artwork>
        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 2
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Type=[TBD]          |           Length=8            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          MUST be zero                         |  Preference   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork></figure>
<t>
                        Figure 1: IPv4 Preference TLV format
</t><t>
   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
   The value contains the following fields:
</t><t>
   Preference (8 bits):  The value indicates the bypass LSP preference during 
   the primary LSP selection process of the PCC.  A lower preference value is
   preferred to a higher value with a default value of 255.  A value of 0 would 
   indicate that the bypass is not to be selected for any primary LSP
   associations.
</t><t>
   If the Preference TLV is included, then the LSPA object MUST also carry
   the SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV as one of the optional TLVs.  Failure to
   include the mandatory SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV MUST trigger PCErr of
   type 6 (Mandatory Object missing) and value TBD (SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME
   TLV missing for bypass LSP).
</t><t>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-4.2" title="  The Bypass TLV">
<t>
   The facility backup method creates a bypass tunnel to protect a
   potential failure point.  The bypass tunnel protects a set of LSPs
   with similar backup constraints <xref target="RFC4090"></xref>.
</t><t>
   A PCC can delegate a bypass tunnel to PCE control or a PCE can
   provision the bypass tunnel via a PCC.  The procedures for bypass
   instantiation rely on the extensions defined in
   <xref target="RFC8281"></xref> and will be detailed in a future version of this 
   document.
</t><t>
   A subscription multiplier can be used to influence the local PCC admission control
   during primary LSP association.  This allows for under subscription or 
   oversubscription policy to be applied to the bandwidth attribute of the bypass LSP.
</t><t>
   The Bypass TLV carries information about the bypass tunnel.  It is
   included in the LSPA Object in LSP State Report and LSP Update
   Request messages.
</t><t>
   The format of the IPv4 Bypass TLV is shown in the following figure:
</t>
<figure> <artwork>
        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 2
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Type=[TBD]          |           Length=8            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          MUST be zero         |           Flags           |I|N|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                     Bypass IPv4 Address                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    Subscription Multiplier                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork></figure>
<t>
                        Figure 2: IPv4 Bypass TLV format
</t><t>
   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it has a fixed length of 8 octets.
   The value contains the following fields:
</t><t>
   Flags (16 bit)
</t><t>
      N (Node Protection - 1 bit):  The N flag indicates whether the
         Bypass is used for node-protection.  If the N flag is set to 1,
         the Bypass is used for node-protection.  If the N flag is 0,
         the Bypass is used for link-protection.
</t><t>
      I (Local Protection In Use - 1 bit):  The I Flag indicates that
         local repair mechanism is in use.
</t><t>
   Bypass IPv4 address: The Bypass IPv4 Address is the next-hop address of 
   the protected link in the paths of the protected LSPs.
</t><t>
   Subscription Multiplier (32 bits):  An optional multiplier represented
   as a floating point number.  The value may be used to influence CAC during
   primary LSP association.  For example, a bypass may reserved 50M but the 
   PCC may want to admit up to (multiplier * reserved bandwidth) to the bypass
   LSP.
</t><t>
   If the Bypass TLV is included, then the LSPA object MUST also carry
   the SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV as one of the optional TLVs.  Failure to
   include the mandatory SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV MUST trigger PCErr of
   type 6 (Mandatory Object missing) and value TBD (SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME
   TLV missing for bypass LSP)
</t><t>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-4.3" title="  The LOCALLY-PROTECTED-LSPS TLV">
<t>
   The IPV4-LOCALLY-PROTECTED-LSPS TLV in the LSPA Object contains a list of
   LSPs protected by the bypass tunnel.
</t><t>
   The format of the Locally protected LSPs TLV is shown in the following figure:
</t>
<figure><artwork>
       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 2
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Type=[TBD]          |       Length (variable)       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   IPv4 tunnel end point address               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Flags            |R|           Tunnel ID           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Extended Tunnel ID                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          MUST be zero         |            LSP ID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      //                            ....                             //
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   IPv4 tunnel end point address               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Flags            |R|           Tunnel ID           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Extended Tunnel ID                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          MUST be zero         |            LSP ID             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork></figure>
<t>
                Figure 3: IPv4 Locally protected LSPs TLV format
</t><t>
   The type of the TLV is [TBD] and it is of variable length.The value
   contains one or more LSP descriptors including the following fields
   filled per <xref target = "RFC3209"></xref>
</t><t>
   IPv4 Tunnel end point address: As defined in <xref target = "RFC3209"></xref>, Section 4.6.1.1
</t><t>
   Flags (16 bit)
</t><t>
      R(Remove - 1 bit):  The R flag indicates that the LSP has been
         removed from the list of LSPs protected by the bypass tunnel.
</t><t>
   Tunnel ID:  As defined in <xref target = "RFC3209"></xref>, Section 4.6.1.1
</t><t>
   Extended Tunnel ID:  As defined in <xref target = "RFC3209"></xref>, Section 4.6.2.1
</t><t>
   IPv4 Tunnel Sender address:  As defined in <xref target = "RFC3209"></xref>, Section 4.6.2.1
</t><t>
   LSP ID:  As defined in RFC 3209
</t><t>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-5" title="  IANA considerations">
<t>
</t>
<section anchor="sec-5.1" title="  PCEP-Error Object">
<t>
   This document defines new Error-Type and Error-Value for the
   following new error conditions:
</t><t>
    Error-Type  Meaning
       6        Mandatory Object missing
                 Error-value=TBD:  SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing for a
                                 path where the S-bit is set in the LSPA
                                 object.
                 Error-value=TBD:  SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV missing for a
                                 bypass path.
</t><t>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-5.2" title="  PCEP TLV Type Indicators">
<t>
   This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs:
</t>
<texttable anchor="table_ex" title="New PCEP TLVs">
    <ttcol align='center'>Value #</ttcol>
    <ttcol align='center'>Meaning</ttcol>
    <ttcol align='center'>Reference</ttcol>
    <c>???</c>
    <c>Bypass</c>
    <c>This Document</c>
    <c>???</c>
    <c>Weight</c>
    <c>This Document</c>
    <c>???</c>
    <c>LOCALLY-PROTECTED-LSPS</c>
    <c>This Document</c>
</texttable>
<t>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-6" title="  Security Considerations">
<t>
   The same security considerations apply at the PLR as those describe
   for the head end in <xref target ="RFC8281"> PCE Initiated LSPs </xref>.
</t><t>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="sec-7" title="  Contributors">
<t>
   The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of
   this document:
</t><t>
   Harish Sitaraman, Juniper Networks, hsitaraman@juniper.net
</t><t>
   Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Juniper Networks, vbeeram@juniper.net
</t><t>
   Chandrasekar Ramachandran, Juniper Networks, csekar@juniper.net
</t><t>
   Ambrose Kwong, Juniper Networks, akwong@juniper.net
</t><t>
   Phil Bedard, bedard.phil@gmail.com
</t>
</section>

</middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
     1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
     2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
        (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
     directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
     with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
     filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
      &RFC2119;

      <reference anchor="RFC8281">
        <front>
        <!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
          <title>PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model</title>

          <author initials="E" surname="Crabbe"> </author>
          <author initials="S" surname="Sivabalan"> </author>
          <author initials="R" surname="Verga"> </author>
          <date year="2014" />
          </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8231">
        <front>
        <!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->
          <title>PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE</title>

          <author initials="E" surname="Crabbe"> </author>
          <author initials="J" surname="Medved"> </author>
          <author initials="I" surname="Minie"> </author>
          <author initials="R" surname="Verga"> </author>
          <date year="2015" />
          </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5440">
	<front> <title> Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) </title>
	<author initials="JP." surname="Vasseur" fullname="JP. Vasseur"> </author>
	<author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux"> </author>
	<date year="2009" month="March"/>
	</front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3209">
	<front>
	<title>RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels</title>
	<author initials="D." surname="Awduche" fullname="D. Awduche"> </author>
	<author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger"> </author>
	<author initials="D." surname="Gan" fullname="D. Gan"> </author>
	<author initials="T." surname="Li" fullname="T. Li"> </author>
	<author initials="V." surname="Srinivasan" fullname="V. Srinivasan"> </author>
	<author initials="G." surname="Swallow" fullname="G. Swallow"> </author>
	<date year="2001" month="December"/>
	</front>
     </reference>
     <reference anchor="RFC4090">
        <front>
        <title>Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels</title>
	<author initials="P." surname="Pan" fullname="P. Pan"> </author>
	<author initials="G." surname="Swallow" fullname="G. Swallow"> </author>
	<author initials="A." surname="Atlas" fullname="A. Atlas"> </author>
	<date year="2005" month="May"/>
        </front>
     </reference>
     <reference anchor="RFC2205">
        <front>
	<title abbrev="RSVP">
	Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification
</title>
	<author initials="B." surname="Braden" fullname="Bob Braden"> </author>
	<author initials="L." surname="Zhang" fullname="Lixia Zhang"> </author>
	<author initials="S." surname="Berson" fullname="Steve Berson"> </author>
	<author initials="S." surname="Herzog" fullname="Shai Herzog"> </author>
	<author initials="S." surname="Jamin" fullname="Sugih Jamin"> </author>
	<date year="1997" month="September"/>
        </front>
     </reference>
     <reference anchor="RFC5226">
        <front>
	<title>
	Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs </title>
	<author initials="T." surname="Narten" fullname="T. Narten"> </author>
	<author initials="H." surname="Alvestrand" fullname="H. Alvestrand"> </author>
	<date year="2008" month="May"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <!-- Here we use entities that we defined at the beginning. -->

      &RFC2629;
      &RFC3552;
      &I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis;

      <!-- A reference written by by an organization not a person. -->

      <reference anchor="RFC4655">
        <front>
	<title> A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture </title>
        <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="A. Farrel"> </author>
	<author initials="J.-P." surname="Vasseur" fullname="J.-P. Vasseur"> </author>
	<author initials="J." surname="Ash" fullname="J. Ash"> </author>
	<date year="2006" month="August"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC4657">
        <front>
        <title> Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements </title>
      	<author initials="J." surname="Ash" fullname="J. Ash"> </author>
	<author initials="J.L." surname="Le Roux" fullname="J.L. Le Roux"> </author>
	<date year="2006" month="September"/>
        </front>
      </reference>

     <reference anchor="RFC5394">
        <front>
	<title>Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework</title>
	<author initials="I." surname="Bryskin" fullname="I. Bryskin">
	</author>
	<author initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou" fullname="D. Papadimitriou"> </author>
	<author initials="L." surname="Berger" fullname="L. Berger"> </author>
	<author initials="J." surname="Ash" fullname="J. Ash"> </author>
	<date year="2008" month="December"/>
        </front>
     </reference>
     <reference anchor="RFC5557">
        <front>
	<title>
	Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent Optimization
	</title>
	<author initials="Y." surname="Lee" fullname="Y. Lee"> </author>
	<author initials="JL." surname="Le Roux" fullname="JL. Le Roux">
	</author>
	<author initials="D." surname="King" fullname="D. King"> </author>
	<author initials="E." surname="Oki" fullname="E. Oki"> </author>
	<date year="2009" month="July"/>
        </front>
     </reference>

    </references>

    <section anchor="app-additional" title="Additional Stuff">
      <t>This becomes an Appendix.</t>
    </section>

    <!-- Change Log

v00 2006-03-15  EBD   Initial version

v01 2006-04-03  EBD   Moved PI location back to position 1 -
                      v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07  AH    removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
                      other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09  EBD   Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
                      Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
                      figure indent control.  Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
                      Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH     Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
                      added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD    Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative 
                      images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes problems).  -->
  </back>
</rfc>
