< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05.txt		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt >
	PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan		PCE Working Group S. Sivabalan
	Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation		Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation
	Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils		Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
	Expires: May 4, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: August 13, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	J. Hardwick
	Metaswitch Networks
	S. Previdi		S. Previdi
	C. Li		C. Li
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	October 31, 2020		February 9, 2021
	Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.		Carrying Binding Label/Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.
	draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06
	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 10 ¶		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 4, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 36 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶
	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
	3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7		3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. Binding SID in SR-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. PCE Allocation of Binding SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.1. Huawei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.2. Cisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1.2. Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.1.2. Binding SID Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.2. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.3. PCEP Error Type and Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
			Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a		A PCE can compute Traffic Engineering paths (TE paths) through a
	network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths		network that are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths
	are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment		are either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
	Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE		Routing (SR). We refer to such paths as RSVP-TE paths and SR-TE
	paths respectively in this document.		paths respectively in this document.
	As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow		As per [RFC8402] SR allows a headend node to steer a packet flow
	skipping to change at page 4, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 47 ¶
	( ) SID of ( )		( ) SID of ( )
	'-----' Node-1 '-----'		'-----' Node-1 '-----'
	is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP:		is Y SIDs for SR-TE LSP:
	{A, B, C, D}		{A, B, C, D}
	Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID		Figure 1: A sample Use-case of Binding SID
	A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the		A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the
	stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. It		stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message. It
	is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a		is also possible for a stateful PCE to request a PCC to allocate a
	specific binding label/SID by sending an Path Computation Update		specific binding label/SID by sending a Path Computation Update
	Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the		Request (PCUpd) message. If the PCC can successfully allocate the
	specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE.		specified binding value, it reports the binding value to the PCE.
	Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the		Otherwise, the PCC sends an error message to the PCE indicating the
	cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC		cause of the failure. A local policy or configuration at the PCC
	SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.		SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.
	In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use		In this document, we introduce a new OPTIONAL TLV that a PCC can use
	in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or		in order to report the binding label/SID associated with a TE LSP, or
	a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID		a PCE to request a PCC to allocate a specific binding label/SID
	skipping to change at page 5, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 23 ¶
	SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the		SR, or any other future method. Also, in the case of SR-TE LSPs, the
	TLV can carry a binding MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-		TLV can carry a binding MPLS label (for SR-TE path with MPLS data-
	plane) or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with		plane) or a binding IPv6 SID (e.g., IPv6 address for SR-TE paths with
	IPv6 data-plane). Binding value means either MPLS label or SID		IPv6 data-plane). Binding value means either MPLS label or SID
	throughout this document.		throughout this document.
	Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283]		Additionally, to support the PCE based central controller [RFC8283]
	operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some		operation where the PCE would take responsibility for managing some
	part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it		part of the MPLS label space for each of the routers that it
	controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID		controls, the PCE could directly make the binding label/SID
	allocation and inform the PCC. See		allocation and inform the PCC. See Section 7 for details.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] for details.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	The following terminologies are used in this document:		The following terminologies are used in this document:
	BSID: Binding Segment Identifier.		BSID: Binding Segment Identifier.
	LER: Label Edge Router.		LER: Label Edge Router.
	LSP: Label Switched Path.		LSP: Label Switched Path.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 10 ¶
	SRGB: Segment Routing Global Block.		SRGB: Segment Routing Global Block.
	SRLB: Segment Routing Local Block.		SRLB: Segment Routing Local Block.
	TLV: Type, Length, and Value.		TLV: Type, Length, and Value.
	3. Path Binding TLV		3. Path Binding TLV
	The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is		The new optional TLV is called "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV" (whose format is
	shown in the figure below) is defined to carry binding label or SID		shown in the figure below) is defined to carry the binding label or
	for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object specified		SID for a TE path. This TLV is associated with the LSP object
	in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by IANA.		specified in ([RFC8231]). The type of this TLV is to be allocated by
			IANA.
	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 | Length |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| BT | Flags | Reserved |		| BT | Flags | Reserved |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~ Binding Value (variable length) ~		~ Binding Value (variable length) ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV		Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
	TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry		TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is a generic TLV such that it is able to carry
	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 octet field identifies the type of binding		Binding Type (BT): A one-octet 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 fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST		other fields MUST be considered invalid. The Length MUST be set
	be set to 7.		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. The Length MUST be set to 8.		according its local policy. The Length MUST be set to 8.
	o BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with a format of a 16		o BT = 2: The binding value is an SRv6 SID with a format of a 16
	octet IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The		octet IPv6 address, representing the binding SID for SRv6. The
	Length MUST be set to 20.		Length MUST be set to 20.
	o BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in		o BT = 3: The binding value is a 24 octet field, defined in
	Section 3.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior		Section 3.1, that contains the SRv6 SID as well as its Behavior
	and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.		and Structure. The Length MUST be set to 28.
	Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined in the new		Flags: 1 octet of flags. Following flags are defined in the new
	registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in		registry "SR Policy Binding SID Flags" as described in
	Section 10.1.2:		Section 11.1.2:
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |I|S|		| |I|S|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	where:		where:
	o S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior. It		o S-Flag: This flag encodes the "Specified-BSID-only" behavior. It
	is used as described in Section 6.2.3 of		is used as described in Section 6.2.3 of
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
	o I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is		o I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is
	used as described in Section 8.2 of		used as described in Section 8.2 of
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].
	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-octet boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS		a 4-octet boundary. For the BT as 0, the 20 bits represent the MPLS
	label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent the label stack entry		label. For the BT as 1, the 32-bits represent 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. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value contains SRv6 Endpoint		SID. For the BT as 3, the Binding Value contains SRv6 Endpoint
	Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 3.1.		Behavior and SID Structure, defined in Section 3.1.
	3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure		3.1. SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure
	Carried as the Binding Value in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT		Carried as the Binding Value in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV when the BT
	is set to 3. Applicable for SRv6 Binding SIDs		is set to 3. Applicable for SRv6 Binding SIDs
	skipping to change at page 8, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 29 ¶
	Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.		Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
	4. Operation		4. Operation
	The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via		The binding value is allocated by the PCC and reported to a PCE via
	PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,		PCRpt message. If a PCE does not recognize the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV,
	it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE		it would ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). If a PCE
	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 the PCRpt message, PCE MUST
	that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If a PCE		assume that the corresponding LSP does not have any binding. If a
	recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the		PCE recognizes an invalid binding value (e.g., label value from the
	reserved label space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send		reserved label space when MPLS label binding is used), it MUST send
	the PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid		the PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid
	object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in		object") and Error Value = 2 ("Bad label value") as specified in
	[RFC8664].		[RFC8664].
	Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same		Multiple TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs are allowed to be present in the same
	LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for		LSP object. This signifies the presence of multiple binding SIDs for
	the given LSP.		the given LSP.
	For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the		For SRv6 BSIDs, it is RECOMMENDED to always explicitly specify the
	skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 26 ¶
	the corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a		the corresponding PCEP session with the reason "Reception of a
	malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]).		malformed PCEP message" (according to [RFC5440]).
	If a PCC wishes to withdraw or modify a previously reported binding		If a PCC wishes to withdraw or modify a previously reported binding
	value, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any TE-PATH-BINDING TLV		value, it MUST send a PCRpt message without any TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
	or with the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new binding value		or with the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new binding value
	respectively.		respectively.
	If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it		If a PCE wishes to modify a previously requested binding value, it
	MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new		MUST send a PCUpd message with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV containing the new
	binding value. Absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means		binding value. The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message
	that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the		means that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case the
	binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.		binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
	If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different		If a PCC receives a valid binding value from a PCE which is different
	than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new		than the current binding value, it MUST try to allocate the new
	value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC		value. If the new binding value is successfully allocated, the PCC
	MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a		MUST report the new value to the PCE. Otherwise, it MUST send a
	PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")		PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure")
	and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/		and Error Value = TBD4 ("Unable to allocate the specified label/
	SID").		SID").
	skipping to change at page 10, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 15 ¶
	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.
	[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of		[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SR-ERO subobject" capable of
	carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)		carrying a SID as well as the identity of the node/adjacency (NAI)
	represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type		represented by the SID. The NAI Type (NT) field indicates the type
	and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding		and format of the NAI contained in the SR-ERO. In case of binding
	SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as		SID, the NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
	per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the		per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the
	S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further the M bit is		S bit needs to be zero and the Length is 8. Further, the M bit is
	set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be		set. If these conditions are not met, the entire ERO MUST be
	considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10		considered invalid and a PCErr message is sent with Error-Type = 10
	("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed		("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed
	object").		object").
	6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO		6. Binding SID in SRv6-ERO
	[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6		[RFC8664] defines a new ERO subobject "SRv6-ERO subobject" for SRv6
	SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as		SID. The NAI MUST NOT be included and NT MUST be set to zero. So as
	per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], for NT=0, the F bit is set to 1, the		per Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664], 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 [RFC8664]).		Error-Value = 11 ("Malformed object") (as per [RFC8664]).
	7. Implementation Status		7. PCE Allocation of Binding SID
			Section 4 already includes the scenario where a PCE requires a PCC to
			allocate a specified binding value by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate
			message containing a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This section specify an
			OPTIONAL feature for the PCE to allocate the binding label on its own
			accord in the case where the PCE also controls the label space of the
			PCC and can make the label allocation on its own as described in
			[RFC8283]. Note that the act of requesting a specific binding value
			(Section 4) is different from the act of allocating a binding label/
			SID as described in this section.
			[RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller
			as an extension of the architecture described in [RFC4655] and
			assumes the continued use of PCEP as the protocol used between PCE
			and PCC. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] specifies
			the procedures and PCEP extensions for using the PCE as the central
			controller.
			For an implementation that supports PCECC operations as per
			[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller], the binding label/
			SID MAY also be allocated by the PCE itself. Both peers need to
			exchange the PCECC capability as described in
			[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] before PCE could
			allocate the binding label/SID on its own.
			A new P flag in the LSP object [RFC8231] is introduced to indicate
			the allocation needs to be made by the PCE:
			o P (PCE-allocated binding label/SID - TBD6): If the bit is set to
			1, it indicates that the PCC requests PCE to make allocations for
			this LSP. The TLV in LSP object identifies what should be
			allocated, such as Binding label/SID. A PCC would set this bit to
			1 and include a TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object to request
			for allocation of Binding label/SID by the PCE in the PCEP
			message. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 and include a TE-
			PATH-BINDING TLV to indicate that the Binding label/SID is
			allocated by PCE and encoded in the PCEP message towards PCC.
			Further, a PCE would set this bit to 0 and include a TE-PATH-
			BINDING TLV in the LSP object to indicate that the Binding label/
			SID should be allocated by the PCC as described in Section 4.
			Note that,
			o a PCE could allocate the binding label/SID on its own accord for a
			PCE-initiated or delegated LSP, and inform the PCC in the
			PCInitiate message or PCUpd message by setting P=1 and including
			TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in the LSP object.
			o to let the PCC allocates the binding label/SID, a PCE could set
			P=0 and empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV ( i.e., no binding value is
			specified) in the LSP object in PCInitiate/PCUpd message.
			o a PCC could request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID by
			setting P=1, D=1, and empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCRpt message.
			The PCE would allocate it and respond to the PCC with PCUpd
			message including the allocated binding label/SID in the TE-PATH-
			BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object.
			o if both peers have not exchanged the PCECC capabilities as per
			[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] and it receives
			P=1 in the LSP object, it needs to act as per
			[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]:
			* Send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and
			Error-Value=TBD (Attempted PCECC operations when PCECC
			capability was not advertised)
			* Terminate the PCEP session
			It is assumed that the label range to be used by a PCE is known and
			set on both PCEP peers. The exact mechanism is out of scope of
			[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller] or this document.
			Note that the specific BSID could be from the PCE-controlled or the
			PCC-controlled label space. PCE would directly allocate the label
			from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above,
			whereas PCE would request for the allocation of a specific BSID from
			the PCC-controlled label space with P=0 as described in Section 4.
			8. 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
	assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to		assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
	RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation		RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
	skipping to change at page 11, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 36 ¶
	has been spent to verify the information presented here that was		has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
	supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not		supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
	be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their		be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
	features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may		features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
	exist.		exist.
	According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups		According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
	to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of		to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
	running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation		running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
	and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.		and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
	It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as		It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
	they see fit".		they see fit".
	7.1. Huawei		8.1. Huawei
	o Organization: Huawei		o Organization: Huawei
	o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller		o Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
	o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to		o Description: An experimental code-point is used and plan to
	request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.		request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption.
	o Maturity Level: Production		o Maturity Level: Production
	o Coverage: Full		o Coverage: Full
	o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com		o Contact: chengli13@huawei.com
	7.2. Cisco		8.2. Cisco
	o Organization: Cisco Systems		o Organization: Cisco Systems
	o Implementation: Head-end and controller.		o Implementation: Head-end and controller.
	o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used.		o Description: An experimental code-point is currently used.
	o Maturity Level: Production		o Maturity Level: Production
	o Coverage: Full		o Coverage: Full
	o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com		o Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
	8. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],		The security considerations described in [RFC5440], [RFC8231],
	[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No		[RFC8281] and [RFC8664] are applicable to this specification. No
	additional security measure is required.		additional security measure is required.
	As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate		As described [RFC8664], SR allows a network controller to instantiate
	and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding		and control paths in the network. A rouge PCE can manipulate binding
	SID allocations to move traffic around for some other LSPs that uses		SID allocations to move traffic around for 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		10. Manageability Considerations
	All manageability requirements and considerations listed in		All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
	[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions		[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] apply to PCEP protocol extensions
	defined in this document. In addition, requirements and		defined in this document. In addition, requirements and
	considerations listed in this section apply.		considerations listed in this section apply.
	9.1. Control of Function and Policy		10.1. 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		10.2. 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.
	9.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring		10.3. 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		10.4. 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 [RFC8664].		[RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664].
	9.5. Requirements On Other Protocols		10.5. 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		10.6. Impact On Network Operations
	Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply		Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8664] also apply
	to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism		to PCEP extensions defined in this document. Further, the mechanism
	described in this document can help the operator to request control		described in this document can help the operator to request control
	of the LSPs at a particular PCE.		of the LSPs at a particular PCE.
	10. IANA Considerations		11. IANA Considerations
	10.1. PCEP TLV Type Indicators		11.1. 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
	TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document		TBD1 TE-PATH-BINDING This document
	10.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV		11.1.1. TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
	IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the		IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
	Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.		Binding Type field in the TE-PATH-BINDING TLV.
	Value Description Reference		Value Description Reference
	0 MPLS Label This document		0 MPLS Label This document
	1 MPLS Label Stack This document		1 MPLS Label Stack This document
	Entry		Entry
	2 SRv6 SID This document		2 SRv6 SID This document
	3 SRv6 SID with This document		3 SRv6 SID with This document
	Behavior and		Behavior and
	Structure		Structure
	10.1.2. Binding SID Flags		11.1.2. Binding SID Flags
	IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the		IANA is requested to create a sub-registry to manage the value of the
	Binding SID Flags field in the TE-PATH-BINDING-TLV. New values are		Binding SID Flags field in the TE-PATH-BINDING-TLV. New values are
	to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be		to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]. Each bit should be
	tracked with the following qualities:		tracked with the following qualities:
	o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)		o Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)
	o Flag Name		o Flag Name
	o Reference		o Reference
	Bit Description Reference		Bit Description Reference
	7 Specified-BSID-Only This document		7 Specified-BSID-Only This document
	Flag (S-Flag)		Flag (S-Flag)
	6 Drop Upon Invalid This document		6 Drop Upon Invalid This document
	Flag (I-Flag)		Flag (I-Flag)
	10.2. PCEP Error Type and Value		11.2. LSP Object
			IANA is requested to allocate new code-point in the "LSP Object Flag
			Field" sub-registry for the new P flag as follows:
			Bit Description Reference
			TBD6 PCE-allocated binding This document
			label/SID
			11.3. PCEP Error Type and Value
	This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr		This document defines a new Error-type and Error-Values for the PCErr
	message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-		message. IANA is requested to allocate new error-type and error-
	values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"		values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
	subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:		subregistry of the PCEP Numbers registry, as follows:
	Error-Type Meaning		Error-Type Meaning
	---------- -------		---------- -------
	TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:		TBD2 Binding label/SID failure:
	Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID		Error-value = TBD3: Invalid SID
	Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate		Error-value = TBD4: Unable to allocate
	the specified		the specified
	label/SID		label/SID
	Error-value = TBD5: Unable to allocate		Error-value = TBD5: Unable to allocate
	label/SID		label/SID
	11. Acknowledgements		12. Acknowledgements
	We like to thank Milos Fabian and Mrinmoy Das for thier valuable		We like to thank Milos Fabian, Mrinmoy Das, and Andrew Stone for
	comments.		their valuable comments.
	12. References		13. References
	12.1. Normative References		13.1. 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 15, line 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 46 ¶
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]		[I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
	Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,		Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J., Voyer, D.,
	Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",		Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6 Network Programming",
	draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-24 (work in		draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-28 (work in
	progress), October 2020.		progress), December 2020.
	12.2. Informative References		[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
			Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
			Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
			Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
			extension-for-pce-controller-10 (work in progress),
			January 2021.
			13.2. 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,
	skipping to change at page 16, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 18, line 34 ¶
	[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,		[RFC8669] Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Ed., Sreekantiah,
	A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment		A., and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix Segment
	Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,		Identifier Extensions for BGP", RFC 8669,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8669, December 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8669>.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]		[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
	Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and		Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and
	P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-		P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft-
	ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-08 (work in progress),		ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress),
	July 2020.		November 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]
	Li, Z., Peng, S., Negi, M., Zhao, Q., and C. Zhou, "PCEP
	Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE as a
	Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
	extension-for-pce-controller-07 (work in progress),
	September 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-14 (work in progress), July 2020.		yang-15 (work in progress), October 2020.
	Appendix A. Contributor Addresses		Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
			Jonathan Hardwick
			Metaswitch Networks
			100 Church Street
			Enfield, Middlesex
			UK
			EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
	Dhruv Dhody		Dhruv Dhody
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield		Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
	Bangalore, Karnataka 560066		Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
	India		India
	EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com		EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
	Mahendra Singh Negi		Mahendra Singh Negi
	RtBrick India		RtBrick India
	skipping to change at page 17, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 4 ¶
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Email: zali@cisco.com		Email: zali@cisco.com
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Siva Sivabalan		Siva Sivabalan
	Ciena Corporation		Ciena Corporation
	EMail: msiva282@gmail.com		EMail: msiva282@gmail.com
	Clarence Filsfils		Clarence Filsfils
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Pegasus Parc		Pegasus Parc
	De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831		De kleetlaan 6a, DIEGEM BRABANT 1831
	BELGIUM		BELGIUM
	EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com		EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com
	Jeff Tantsura		Jeff Tantsura
	Apstra, Inc.		Apstra, Inc.
	EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com		EMail: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
	Jonathan Hardwick
	Metaswitch Networks
	100 Church Street
	Enfield, Middlesex
	UK
	EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
	Stefano Previdi		Stefano Previdi
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	EMail: stefano@previdi.net		EMail: stefano@previdi.net
	Cheng Li		Cheng Li
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.		Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
	Beijing 100095		Beijing 100095
	China		China
	EMail: chengli13@huawei.com		EMail: c.l@huawei.com
End of changes. 47 change blocks.
	90 lines changed or deleted		178 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/