idnits 2.17.1 draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8664]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC8664, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 2, 2021) is 1151 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group Ran. Chen 3 Internet-Draft Zhu. Chun 4 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation 5 Expires: August 6, 2021 February 2, 2021 7 PCEP Extensions for sid verification for SR-MPLS 8 draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-00 10 Abstract 12 This document updates [RFC8664] to clarify usage of "SID 13 verification" bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol 14 (PCEP), and this document proposes to define a new flag for 15 indicating the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by 16 the PCE. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2021. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. SID verification flag(V-Flag) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 3.1. Extended V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 3.2. Extended V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 6. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 1. Introduction 65 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] describes the "SID 66 verification" bit usage. SID verification is performed when the 67 headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the controller 68 via the signaling protocol used. Implementations MAY provide a local 69 configuration option to enable verification on a global or per policy 70 or per candidate path basis. 72 [RFC8664] specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element 73 Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute 74 and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path 75 Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain 76 constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks. 78 This document updates [RFC8664] to clarify usage of "SID 79 verification" bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol 80 (PCEP), and this document proposes to define a new flag for 81 indicating the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by 82 the PCE. 84 2. Conventions used in this document 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 88 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. 90 3. SID verification flag(V-Flag) 92 3.1. Extended V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject 94 Section 4.3.1 in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol 95 (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8664] describes a new ERO 96 subobject referred to as the "SR-ERO subobject" to carry a SID and/or 97 NAI information. A new flag is proposed in this doucument in the SR- 98 ERO Subobject for indicating the pcc is explicitly requested to 99 verify SID(s) by the PCE. 101 The format of the SR-ERO subobject as defined in [RFC8664] is: 103 0 1 2 3 104 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 1 105 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 106 |L| Type=36 | Length | NT | Flags |V|F|S|C|M| 107 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 108 | SID (optional) | 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 110 // NAI (variable, optional) // 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 Figure 1 SR-ERO Subobject Format of extended V-Flag 115 V: When the V-Flag is set then PCC MUST consider the "SID 116 verification" as described in Section 5.1 in 117 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] . 119 3.2. Extended V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject 121 The format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO 122 subobject, but without the L-Flag, per [RFC8664]. 124 The V flag has no meaning in the SR-RRO and is ignored on receipt at 125 the PCE. 127 4. Security Considerations 129 TBD. 131 5. IANA Considerations 133 5.1. SR-ERO Subobject 135 This document defines a new bit value in the sub-registry "SR-ERO 136 Flag Field" in the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 137 registry. 139 Bit Name Reference 140 7 SID verification(V) This document 142 6. Normative references 144 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 145 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and 146 P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- 147 ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress), 148 November 2020. 150 [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., 151 and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication 152 Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, 153 DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, 154 . 156 Authors' Addresses 158 Ran Chen 159 ZTE Corporation 161 Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn 163 Chun Zhu 164 ZTE Corporation 166 Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn