< draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-14.txt		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15.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: 3 September 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: 21 September 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Microsoft Corporation		Microsoft Corporation
	S. Previdi		S. Previdi
	C. Li, Ed.		C. Li, Ed.
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	2 March 2022		20 March 2022
	Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.		Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.
	draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-14		draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-15
	Abstract		Abstract
	In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and		In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and
	service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment		service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
	Identifier (SID) (called BSID) as described in RFC 8402. It is		Identifier (SID) (called BSID) as described in RFC 8402. It is
	possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic		possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic
	Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic Engineering path.		Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic Engineering path.
	The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into		The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into
	the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document		the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies. This document
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 47 ¶
	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 3 September 2022.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 September 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
	license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.		license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
	Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights		Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
	skipping to change at page 9, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 30 ¶
	- LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.		- LB Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Block length in bits.
	- LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.		- LN Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Locator Node length in bits.
	- Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.		- Function Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Function length in bits.
	- Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.		- Argument Length: 1 octet. SRv6 SID Arguments length in bits.
	The total of the locator block, locator node, function, and argument		The total of the locator block, locator node, function, and argument
	lengths MUST be lower or equal to 128 bits. If this condition is not		lengths MUST be lower or equal to 128 bits. If this condition is not
	met, the corresponding TE-PATH-BINDING TLV MUST be considered as an		met, the corresponding TE-PATH-BINDING TLV is considered invalid.
	error. Also, if the Endpoint Behavior is found to be unknown or		Also, if the Endpoint Behavior is found to be unknown or
	inconsistent, it is considered an error. A PCErr message with Error-		inconsistent, it is considered invalid. A PCErr message with Error-
	Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 37		Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 37
	("Invalid SRv6 SID Structure") MUST be sent.		("Invalid SRv6 SID Structure") MUST be sent in such cases.
	The SRv6 SID Structure could be used by the PCE for ease of		The SRv6 SID Structure could be used by the PCE for ease of
	operations and monitoring. For example, this information could be		operations and monitoring. For example, this information could be
	used for validation of SRv6 SIDs being instantiated in the network		used for validation of SRv6 SIDs being instantiated in the network
	and checked for conformance to the SRv6 SID allocation scheme chosen		and checked for conformance to the SRv6 SID allocation scheme chosen
	by the operator as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC8986]. In the		by the operator as described in Section 3.2 of [RFC8986]. In the
	future, PCE could also be used for verification and the automation		future, PCE could also be used for verification and the automation
	for securing the SRv6 domain by provisioning filtering rules at SR		for securing the SRv6 domain by provisioning filtering rules at SR
	domain boundaries as described in Section 5 of [RFC8754]. The		domain boundaries as described in Section 5 of [RFC8754]. The
	details of these potential applications are outside the scope of this		details of these potential applications are outside the scope of this
	skipping to change at page 22, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 22, line 44 ¶
	Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)		Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
	Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central		Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central
	Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,		Controller (PCECC) of LSPs", RFC 9050,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,		DOI 10.17487/RFC9050, July 2021,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9050>.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]		[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]
	Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,		Li, C., Negi, M., Sivabalan, S., Koldychev, M.,
	Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment		Kaladharan, P., and Y. Zhu, "PCEP Extensions for Segment
	Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", Work in Progress,		Routing leveraging the IPv6 data plane", Work in Progress,
	Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11, 10		Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-12, 6
	January 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-		March 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
	ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-11.txt>.		ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-12.txt>.
	14.2. Informative References		14.2. Informative References
	[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path		[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
	Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,		Computation 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
	skipping to change at page 23, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 23, line 25 ¶
	[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,		[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
	Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header		Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
	(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,		(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
	[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", Work in		P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in
	Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-		Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment-
	routing-policy-18, 17 February 2022,		routing-policy-21, 19 March 2022,
	<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-		<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-
	segment-routing-policy-18.txt>.		segment-routing-policy-21.txt>.
	[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]		[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
	Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura,		Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V. P., and J. Tantsura,
	"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element		"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
	Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,		Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
	Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-18, 25 January		Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-18, 25 January
	2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-		2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-
	pcep-yang-18.txt>.		pcep-yang-18.txt>.
	[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]		[I-D.li-pce-controlled-id-space]
	skipping to change at page 24, line 8 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 8 ¶
	"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)		"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
	Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", Work		Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing (SR)", Work
	in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-		in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-
	segment-05, 13 February 2022,		segment-05, 13 February 2022,
	<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-		<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-
	segment-05.txt>.		segment-05.txt>.
	Appendix A. Contributor Addresses		Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
	Jonathan Hardwick		Jonathan Hardwick
	Metaswitch Networks		Microsoft
	33 Genotin Road
	Enfield
	United Kingdom		United Kingdom
	EMail: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com		EMail: jonhardwick@microsoft.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
End of changes. 11 change blocks.
	17 lines changed or deleted		15 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/