idnits 2.17.1 draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-01.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 22, 2021) is 1131 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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 ZTE Corporation 4 Intended status: Standards Track Samuel. Sidor 5 Expires: August 26, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 Zhu. Chun 7 ZTE Corporation 8 Alex. Tokar 9 Mike. Koldychev 10 Cisco Systems, Inc. 11 February 22, 2021 13 PCEP Extensions for sid verification for SR-MPLS 14 draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-01 16 Abstract 18 This document updates [RFC8664] to clarify usage of "SID 19 verification" bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol 20 (PCEP), and this document proposes to define a new flag for 21 indicating the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by 22 the PCE. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2021. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. SID verification flag(V-Flag) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.1. Extended V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3.2. Extended V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 5.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 1. Introduction 71 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] describes the "SID 72 verification" bit usage. SID verification is performed when the 73 headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the controller 74 via the signaling protocol used. Implementations MAY provide a local 75 configuration option to enable verification on a global or per policy 76 or per candidate path basis. 78 [RFC8664] specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element 79 Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute 80 and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path 81 Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain 82 constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks. 84 This document updates [RFC8664] to clarify usage of "SID 85 verification" bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol 86 (PCEP), and this document proposes to define a new flag for 87 indicating the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by 88 the PCE. 90 2. Conventions used in this document 92 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 93 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 94 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. 96 3. SID verification flag(V-Flag) 98 3.1. Extended V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject 100 Section 4.3.1 in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol 101 (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8664] describes a new ERO 102 subobject referred to as the "SR-ERO subobject" to carry a SID and/or 103 NAI information. A new flag is proposed in this doucument in the SR- 104 ERO Subobject for indicating the pcc is explicitly requested to 105 verify SID(s) by the PCE. 107 The format of the SR-ERO subobject as defined in [RFC8664] is: 109 0 1 2 3 110 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 1 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 |L| Type=36 | Length | NT | Flags |V|F|S|C|M| 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | SID (optional) | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 // NAI (variable, optional) // 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 Figure 1 SR-ERO Subobject Format of extended V-Flag 121 V: When the V-Flag is set then PCC MUST consider the "SID 122 verification" as described in Section 5.1 in 123 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] . 125 3.2. Extended V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject 127 The format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO 128 subobject, but without the L-Flag, per [RFC8664]. 130 The V flag has no meaning in the SR-RRO and is ignored on receipt at 131 the PCE. 133 4. Security Considerations 135 TBD. 137 5. IANA Considerations 138 5.1. SR-ERO Subobject 140 This document defines a new bit value in the sub-registry "SR-ERO 141 Flag Field" in the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 142 registry. 144 Bit Name Reference 145 7 SID verification(V) This document 147 6. Normative references 149 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 150 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and 151 P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", draft- 152 ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09 (work in progress), 153 November 2020. 155 [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., 156 and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication 157 Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, 158 DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, 159 . 161 Authors' Addresses 163 Ran Chen 164 ZTE Corporation 166 Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn 168 Samuel Sidor 169 Cisco Systems, Inc. 171 Email: ssidor@cisco.com 173 Chun Zhu 174 ZTE Corporation 176 Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn 178 Alex Tokar 179 Cisco Systems, Inc. 181 Email: atokar@cisco.com 182 Mike Koldychev 183 Cisco Systems, Inc. 185 Email: mkoldych@cisco.com