< draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-02.txt >
PCE Working Group D. Dhody, Ed. PCE Working Group D. Dhody, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: December 31, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: August 31, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Individual Individual
J. Hardwick J. Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks Metaswitch Networks
June 29, 2017 February 27, 2018
Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for Path Computation Element communication Protocol extension for
associating Policies and LSPs associating Policies and LSPs
draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-01 draft-ietf-pce-association-policy-02
Abstract Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies to
a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP). Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP).
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 December 31, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 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
(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.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Policy based Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Policy Association Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Policy Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Association object Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element communication
Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path Protocol (PCEP) which enables the communication between a Path
Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. two PCEs based on the PCE architecture [RFC4655]. [RFC5394] provides
additional details on policy within the PCE architecture and also
provides context for the support of PCE Policy.
PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set of
describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of Multiprotocol Label
MPLS-TE and GMPLS tunnels. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS)
describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the tunnels. [RFC8281] describes the setup and teardown of PCE-initiated
active stateful PCE model, without the need for local configuration LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, without the need for local
on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network. Currently, the LSPs configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic network.
can either be signaled via RSVP-TE or can be segment routed as Currently, the LSPs can either be signaled via Resource Reservation
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or can be segment routed as
specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define
associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as associations between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as
configuration parameters or behaviors) and is equally applicable to configuration parameters or behaviors) and is equally applicable to
stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE. stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE.
This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one or more
LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism. LSPs with policies using the generic association mechanism.
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 skipping to change at page 3, line 29
A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to A PCEP speaker may want to influence the PCEP peer with respect to
path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP path selection and other policies. This document describes a PCEP
extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group extension to associate policies by creating Policy Association Group
(PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The (PAG) and encoding this association in PCEP messages. The
specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP specification is applicable to both stateful and stateless PCEP
sessions. sessions.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document. The following terminology is used in this document.
Association parameters: As described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the combination of the mandatory
fields Association type, Association ID and Association Source in
the ASSOCIATION object uniquely identify the association group.
If the optional TLVs - Global Association Source or Extended
Association ID are included, then they MUST be included in
combination with mandatory fields to uniquely identifying the
association group.
Association information: As described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], the ASSOCIATION object MAY
include other optional TLVs based on the association types, that
provides 'information' related to the association type.
LSR: Label Switch Router.
LSR: Label Switch Router. LSR: Label Switch Router.
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
PAG: Policy Association Group. PAG: Policy Association Group.
PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element. path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 34
+---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( ) +---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( )
PAG X ( ) +----+ ( ) PAG X ( ) +----+ ( )
{Monitor LSP} '--( )--' '--( )--' {Monitor LSP} '--( )--' '--( )--'
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
'-----' '-----' '-----' '-----'
Case 1: Policy requested by PCE Case 2: Policy requested by Case 1: Policy requested by PCE Case 2: Policy requested by
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE PCE
Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session Figure 1: Sample use-cases for carrying policies over PCEP session
3.1. Policy based Constraints 3.1. Policy based Constraints
In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path In the context of policy-enabled path computation [RFC5394], path
computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE. computation policies may be applied at both a PCC and a PCE.
Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it Consider an Label Switch Router (LSR) with a policy enabled PCC, it
receives a service request via signaling, including over a Network- receives a service request via signaling, including over a Network-
Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference Network Interface (NNI) or User Network Interface (UNI) reference
point, or receives a configuration request over a management point, or receives a configuration request over a management
interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or interface to establish a service. The PCC may also apply user- or
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 9
should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities, should be constrained, that is, which constraints, diversities,
optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should optimization criterion, and constraint relaxation strategies should
be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be be applied in order for the service LSP(s) to have a likelihood to be
successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience successfully established and provide necessary QoS and resilience
against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies against network failures. The user- or service-specific policies
applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path applied to PCC and are then passed to the PCE along with the Path
computation request, in the form of constraints [RFC5394]. computation request, in the form of constraints [RFC5394].
PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] to associate a set of LSPs with
policy and its resulting path computation constraints. This policy and its resulting path computation constraints. This would
simplified the path computation message exchanges. simplify the path computation message exchanges in PCEP.
4. Overview 4. Overview
As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with As per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], LSPs are associated with
other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common other LSPs with which they interact by adding them to a common
association group. Grouping can also be used to define association association group. Grouping can also be used to define association
between LSPs and policies associated to them. One new Association between LSPs and policies associated to them. One new Association
Type is defined in this document, based on the generic Association Type is defined in this document, based on the generic Association
object - object -
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
Association Group (PAG) Association Group (PAG)
This Association-Type is operator-configured association in nature This Association-Type is operator-configured association in nature
and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers. The LSP and created by the operator manually on the PCEP peers. The LSP
belonging to this associations is conveyed via PCEP messages to the belonging to this associations is conveyed via PCEP messages to the
PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range SHOULD NOT be set PCEP peer. Operator-configured Association Range SHOULD NOT be set
for this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full for this association-type, and MUST be ignored, so that the full
range of association identifier can be utilized. range of association identifier can be utilized.
A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy(s). The A PAG can have one or more LSPs and its associated policy(s). The
association identifier, type (Policy), as well as the association association parameters including association identifier, type
source IP address is manually configured by the operator and is used (Policy), as well as the association source IP address is manually
to identify the PAG. configured by the operator and is used to identify the PAG as
described in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
As per the processing rules, as specified in section 5.3 of As per the processing rules specified in section 5.4 of
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], if a PCEP speaker does not support
this Policy association-type, it MUST return a PCErr message with this Policy association-type, it MUST return a PCErr message with
Error-Type TBD "Association Error" and Error-Value 1 "Association- Error-Type 26 (Early allocation by IANA) "Association Error" and
type is not supported". Since the PAG is opaque in nature, the PAG Error-Value 1 "Association-type is not supported". Since the PAG is
and the policy MUST be set on the PCEP peers. If a PCE speaker opaque in nature, the PAG and the policy MUST be configured on the
receives PAG in a PCEP message, and the association information is PCEP peers as per the operator-configured association procedures.
not configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type TBD All processing is as per section 5.4 of
"Association Error" and Error- Value 4 "Association unknown". All [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. If a PCE speaker receives PAG in a
other processing is as per section 5.3 of PCEP message, and the association information is not configured, it
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type TBD "Association Error"
and Error- Value 4 "Association unknown". If some of the association
information [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] (the TLVs defined in
this document) received from the peer does not match the local
configured values, the PCEP speaker will reject the PCEP message and
send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 (Early allocation by IANA)
"Association Error" and Error-Value 5 "Operator-configured
association information mismatch".
5. Policy Association Group 5. Policy Association Group
Association groups and their memberships are defined using the Association groups and their memberships are defined using the
ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Two ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. Two
object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object object types for IPv4 and IPv6 are defined. The ASSOCIATION object
includes "Association type" indicating the type of the association includes "Association type" indicating the type of the association
group. This document add a new Association type - group. This document add a new Association type -
Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for PAG. Association type = TBD1 ("Policy Association Type") for PAG.
PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to - PAG may carry optional TLVs including but not limited to -
o POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV: Used to communicate opaque information
useful to apply the policy, described in Section 5.1.
o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470]. specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].
5.1. Policy Parameters TLV
The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is an optional TLV that can be carried in
ASSOCIATION object (with "Policy Association Type") to carry opaque
information needed to apply the policy at the PCEP peer. In some
cases to apply a PCE policy successfully, it is required to also
associate some policy parameters that needs to be evaluated to
successfully apply the said policy. This TLV is used to carry those
policy parameters. The TLV could include one or more policy related
parameter. The encoding format and the order MUST be known to the
PCEP peers, this could be done during configuration of policy and
association parameters for the PAG. The TLV format is as per the
format of all PCEP TLVs, as defined in [RFC5440], and shown in
Figure 2. Only one POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV can be carried and only the
first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=TBD2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// Policy Parameters //
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV format
The type of the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is TBD2 and it has a variable
length. The Value field is variable field padded to a 4-bytes
alignment; padding is not included in 'Len' field. The 'Len' field
is 1-byte followed by the opaque variable. The PCEP peer
implementation need to be aware of the encoding format, order, and
meaning of the 'Policy Parameters' well in advance based on the
policy. Note that from the protocol point of view this data is
opaque and can be used to carry parameters in any format understood
by the PCEP peers and associated to the policy. The exact use of
this TLV is beyond the scope of this document.
If the PCEP peer is unaware of the policy parameters associated with
the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST ignore
the TLV and SHOULD log this event. Further, if one or more
parameters received in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV received by the PCEP
speaker are considered as unacceptable in the context of the
associated policy (e.g. out of range value, badly encoded value...),
the PCEP speaker MUST NOT apply the received policy and SHOULD log
this event.
Note that, the vendor specific behavioral information is encoded in
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV which can be used along with this TLV.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document defines one new type for association, which do not add This document defines one new type for association, which do not add
any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440], any new security concerns beyond those discussed in [RFC5440],
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] in [RFC8231] and [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] in itself.
itself.
Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications Some deployments may find policy associations and their implications
as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP security as extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP security
mechanisms like [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps]. mechanisms like [RFC8253]. Also extra care needs to be taken by the
implementation with respect to POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding,
verifying and applying these policy variables.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Association object Type Indicators 7.1. Association object Type Indicators
This document defines the following new association type originally This document defines the following new association type originally
defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
TBD1 Policy Association Type [This I.D.] TBD1 Policy Association Type [This I.D.]
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
The following TLV Type Indicator values are requested within the
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:
Value Description Reference
TBD2 POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV [This I.D.]
8. Manageability Considerations 8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy 8.1. Control of Function and Policy
An operator MUST BE allowed to configure the policy associations at An operator MUST be allowed to configure the policy associations at
PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. PCEP peers and associate it with the LSPs. They MAY also allow
configuration to related policy parameters, in which case the an
operator MUST also be allowed to set the encoding format and order to
parse the associated policy parameters TLV.
8.2. Information and Data Models 8.2. Information and Data Models
[RFC7420] describes the PCEP MIB, there are no new MIB Objects for An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the PAG
this document. configured. Further implementation SHOULD allow to view the current
set of LSPs in the PAG. To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] includes association groups and can be used
for PAG.
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
8.4. Verify Correct Operations 8.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
skipping to change at page 7, line 51 skipping to change at page 10, line 33
A special thanks to author of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], this A special thanks to author of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], this
document borrow some of the text from it. document borrow some of the text from it.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. 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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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-association-group] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H., Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "PCEP Extensions for
Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft- Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs", draft-
ietf-pce-association-group-03 (work in progress), June ietf-pce-association-group-04 (work in progress), August
2017. 2017.
[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.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash, [RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394, "Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pceps] [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, "Secure "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-14 (work in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
progress), May 2017. RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[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-10 (work in Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
progress), June 2017. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-09 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 (work in progress),
April 2017. November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-06 (work in progress), January 2018.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Qin Wu Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China China
EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
86 lines changed or deleted 192 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/