< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-01.txt		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02.txt >
	PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan		PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
	Internet-Draft C. Filsfils		Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Expires: May 6, 2020 J. Tantsura		Expires: September 10, 2020 J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	J. Hardwick		J. Hardwick
	Metaswitch Networks		Metaswitch Networks
	S. Previdi		S. Previdi
	C. Li		C. Li
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	November 3, 2019		March 9, 2020
	Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.		Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
	draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-01		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service		In order to provide greater scalability, network opacity, and service
	independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment		independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
	Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE		Identifier (BSID). It is possible to associate a BSID to RSVP-TE
	signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-		signaled Traffic Engineering Label Switching Path or binding Segment-
	ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID		ID (SID) to SR Traffic Engineering path. Such a binding label/SID
	can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the		can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into the
	appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes		appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document proposes
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Path Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	skipping to change at page 3, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 39 ¶
	SID-list.		SID-list.
	[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for		[RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
	communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or		communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE or
	between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies		between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. [RFC8231] specifies
	extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a		extension to PCEP that allows a PCC to delegate its LSPs to a
	stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs		stateful PCE. A stateful PCE can then update the state of LSPs
	delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to		delegated to it. [RFC8281] specifies a mechanism allowing a PCE to
	dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and		dynamically instantiate an LSP on a PCC by sending the path and
	characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE		characteristics. The PCEP extension to setup and maintain SR-TE
	paths is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].		paths is specified in [RFC8664].
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] provides a mechanism for a network		[RFC8664] provides a mechanism for a network controller (acting as a
	controller (acting as a PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR		PCE) to instantiate candidate paths for an SR Policy onto a head-end
	Policy onto a head-end node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more		node (acting as a PCC) using PCEP. For more information on the SR
	information on the SR Policy Architecture, see		Policy Architecture, see [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
	Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the		Binding label/SID has local significance to the ingress node of the
	corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting		corresponding TE path. When a stateful PCE is deployed for setting
	up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID		up TE paths, it may be desirable to report the binding label or SID
	to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR		to the stateful PCE for the purpose of enforcing end-to-end TE/SR
	policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the		policy. A sample Data Center (DC) use-case is illustrated in the
	following diagram. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without		following diagram. In the MPLS DC network, an SR LSP (without
	traffic engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by		traffic engineering) is established using a prefix SID advertised by
	BGP (see [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]). In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE		BGP (see [RFC8669]). In IP/MPLS WAN, an SR-TE LSP is setup using the
	LSP is setup using the PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A,		PCE. The list of SIDs of the SR-TE LSP is {A, B, C, D}. The gateway
	B, C, D}. The gateway node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding		node 1 (which is the PCC) allocates a binding SID X and reports it to
	SID X and reports it to the PCE. In order for the access node to		the PCE. In order for the access node to steer the traffic over the
	steer the traffic over the SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack		SR-TE LSP, the PCE passes the SID stack {Y, X} where Y is the prefix
	{Y, X} where Y is the prefix SID of the gateway node-1 to the access		SID of the gateway node-1 to the access node. In the absence of the
	node. In the absence of the binding SID X, the PCE should pass the		binding SID X, the PCE should pass the SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to
	SID stack {Y, A, B, C, D} to the access node. This example also		the access node. This example also illustrates the additional
	illustrates the additional benefit of using the binding SID to reduce		benefit of using the binding SID to reduce the number of SIDs imposed
	the number of SIDs imposed on the access nodes with a limited		on the access nodes with a limited forwarding capacity.
	forwarding capacity.
	SID stack		SID stack
	{Y, X} +-----+		{Y, X} +-----+
	_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |		_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _| PCE |
	| +-----+		| +-----+
	| ^		| ^
	| | Binding		| | Binding
	| .-----. | SID (X) .-----.		| .-----. | SID (X) .-----.
	| ( ) | ( )		| ( ) | ( )
	V .--( )--. | .--( )--.		V .--( )--. | .--( )--.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 35 ¶
	MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted		MPLS label binding as well as SRv6 Binding SID. It is formatted
	according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].		according to the rules specified in [RFC5440].
	Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding		Binding Type (BT): A one byte field identifies the type of binding
	included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT		included in the TLV. This document specifies the following BT
	values:		values:
	o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format		o BT = 0: The binding value is an MPLS label carried in the format
	specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and		specified in [RFC5462] where only the label value is valid, and
	other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.		other fields (TC, S, and TTL) fields MUST be considered invalid.
	The Length MUST be set to 6.		The Length MUST be set to 7.
	o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the		o BT = 1: Similar to the case where BT is 0 except that all the
	fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,		fields on the MPLS label entry are set on transmission. However,
	the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values		the receiver MAY choose to override TC, S, and TTL values
	according its local policy.		according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.
	o BT = 2: The binding value is a SRv6 SID with a format of an 16		o BT = 2: The binding value is a SRv6 SID with a format of an 16
	byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6.		byte IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
			Length MUST be set to 20.
	Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.		Reserved: MUST be set to 0 while sending and ignored on receipt.
	Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to		Binding Value: A variable length field, padded with trailing zeros to
	a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS		a 4-byte boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represents the MPLS
	label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry		label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represents the label stack entry
	as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6		as per [RFC5462]. For the BT as 2, the 128-bits represent the SRv6
	SID.		SID.
	4. Operation		4. Operation
	skipping to change at page 7, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 22 ¶
	recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr		recognizes the TLV but does not support the TLV, it MUST send PCErr
	with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).		with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not supported).
	If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume		If a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is absent in PCRpt message, PCE MUST assume
	that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are		that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If there are
	more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be		more than one TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs, only the first TLV MUST be
	processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes		processed and the rest MUST be silently ignored. If a PCE recognizes
	an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label		an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the reserved label
	space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr		space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send the PCErr
	message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and		message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
	Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in		Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in [RFC8664].
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
	If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may		If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
	do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-		do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
	BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC		BINDING TLV. If the value can be successfully allocated, the PCC
	reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the		reports the binding value to the PCE. If the PCC considers the
	binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr		binding value specified by the PCE invalid, it MUST send a PCErr
	message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and		message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and
	Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid,		Error Value = TBD3 ("Invalid SID"). If the binding value is valid,
	but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a		but the PCC is unable to allocate the binding value, it MUST send a
	PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")		PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
	skipping to change at page 8, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 27 ¶
	binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an		binding value. It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
	empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified		empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
	(making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the		(making the length field of the TLV as 2). A PCE can also make the
	request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by		request PCC to allocate a binding at the time of initiation by
	sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.		sending a PCInitiate message with an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
	5. Binding SID in SR-ERO		5. Binding SID in SR-ERO
	In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit		In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit
	Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.		Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO		[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of
	subobject" capable of carrying a SID as well as the identity of the		carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)
	node/adjacency (NAI) represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field		represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type
	indicates the type and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In		and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding
	case of binding SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set		SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
	to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing],		per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
	for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the S bit needs to be zero and the		S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is
	Length is 8. Further the M bit is set. If these conditions are not		set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be
	met, the entire ERO MUST be considered invalid and a PCErr message is		considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10
	sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and		("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed
	Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object").		object").
	6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO/		6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO		[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6
	subobject" for SRv6 SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be		SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
	set to zero. So as per Section 5.2.1 of		per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
	S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are		S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 24. If these conditions are
	not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is		not met, the entire ERO is considered invalid and a PCErr message is
	sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and		sent with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
	Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per		Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]).
	7. Implementation Status		7. Implementation Status
	[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as		[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
	well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]		well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]
	This section records the status of known implementations of the		This section records the status of known implementations of the
	protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this		protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
	Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].		Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
	The description of implementations in this section is intended to		The description of implementations in this section is intended to
	skipping to change at page 9, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 48 ¶
	o Maturity Level: Production		o Maturity Level: Production
	o Coverage: Full		o Coverage: Full
	o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com		o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],		The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
	[RFC8281] and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] are applicable to this		[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No
	specification. No additional security measure is required.		additional security measure is required.
	As described [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing], SR allows a network		As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate
	controller to instantiate and control paths in the network. A rouge		and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding
	PCE can manipulate binding SID allocations to move traffic around for		SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses
	some other LSPs that uses BSID in its SR-ERO.		BSID in its SR-ERO.
	Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions		Thus, as per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions
	only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs		only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs
	and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using		and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using
	Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations		Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations
	and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set		and best current practices in BCP195 [RFC7525] (unless explicitly set
	aside in [RFC8253]).		aside in [RFC8253]).
	9. Manageability Considerations		9. Manageability Considerations
	All manageability requirements and considerations listed in		All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
	[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] apply to		[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
	PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition,		defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
	requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.		considerations listed in this section apply.
	9.1. Control of Function and Policy		9.1. Control of Function and Policy
	A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the		A PCC implementation SHOULD allow the operator to configure the
	policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.		policy based on which PCC needs to allocates the binding label/SID.
	9.2. Information and Data Models		9.2. Information and Data Models
	The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to		The PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be extended to
	include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.		include policy configuration for binding label/SID allocation.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 41 ¶
	9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring		9.3. 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].
	9.4. Verify Correct Operations		9.4. 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
	verification requirements in addition to those already listed in		verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
	[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].		[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
	9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols		9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
	Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements		Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
	on other protocols.		on other protocols.
	9.6. Impact On Network Operations		9.6. Impact On Network Operations
	Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and		Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] also apply to PCEP extensions defined		to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
	in this document. Further, the mechanism described in this document		described in this document can help the operator to request control
	can help the operator to request control of the LSPs at a particular		of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
	PCE.
	10. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators		10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
	This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the		This document defines a new PCEP TLV; IANA is requested to make the
	following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-		following allocations from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-
	registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:		registry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
	Value Name Reference		Value Name Reference
	skipping to change at page 13, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 22 ¶
	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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
	[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,		[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
	Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment		Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
	Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,		Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
	July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.		July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]		[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
	Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,		and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
	and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",		Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
	draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),		DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
	March 2019.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. 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,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
	[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An		[RFC8283] Farrel, A., Ed., Zhao, Q., Ed., Li, Z., and C. Zhou, "An
	Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication		Architecture for Use of PCE and the PCE Communication
	Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",		Protocol (PCEP) in a Network with Central Control",
	RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,		RFC 8283, DOI 10.17487/RFC8283, December 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8283>.
			[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
			A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
			Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
	Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and		Filsfils, C., Sivabalan, S., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
	P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-		P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
	ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-03 (work in progress),		ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06 (work in progress),
	May 2019.		December 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
	Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
	and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
	BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
	June 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]		[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
	Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., and C. Zhou, "PCEP Procedures		Zhao, Q., Li, Z., Negi, M., Peng, S., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
	and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a Central		Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
	Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-		Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
	extension-for-pce-controller-02 (work in progress), July		extension-for-pce-controller-04 (work in progress), March
	2019.		2020.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]		[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
	Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A		Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
	YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element		YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
	Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-		Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
	yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019.		yang-13 (work in progress), October 2019.
	Appendix A. Contributor Addresses		Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
	Dhruv Dhody		Dhruv Dhody
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	79 lines changed or deleted		74 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/