idnits 2.17.1 draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-03.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 (4 January 2022) is 836 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR R. Chen 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Sidor 5 Expires: 8 July 2022 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 C. Zhu 7 ZTE Corporation 8 A. Tokar 9 M. Koldychev 10 Cisco Systems, Inc. 11 4 January 2022 13 Updates to SID Verification for SR-MPLS in RFC 8664 14 draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-03 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 8 July 2022. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 48 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 49 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 50 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 51 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 52 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 53 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 3. SID verification flag(V-Flag) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3.1. Extended V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.2. Extended V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 5.1. SR-ERO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 7. 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. Requirements Language 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 96 cloud transport network: It is usually a national or province 97 backbone network to achieve interconnection between multiple regional 98 clouds/core clouds deployed in the country/province. 100 3. SID verification flag(V-Flag) 102 3.1. Extended V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject 104 Section 4.3.1 in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol 105 (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8664] describes a new ERO 106 subobject referred to as the "SR-ERO subobject" to carry a SID and/or 107 NAI information. A new flag is proposed in this doucument in the SR- 108 ERO Subobject for indicating the pcc is explicitly requested to 109 verify SID(s) by the PCE. 111 The format of the SR-ERO subobject as defined in [RFC8664] is: 113 0 1 2 3 114 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 1 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 |L| Type=TBD | Length | NT | Flags |V|F|S|C|M| 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 | SID (optional) | 119 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 120 // NAI (variable, optional) // 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Figure 1 125 V: When the V-Flag is set then PCC MUST consider the "SID 126 verification" as described in Section 5.1 in 127 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. 129 The other fields in the SR-ERO subobject is the same as that of the 130 SR-ERO subobject as defined in [RFC8664]. 132 3.2. Extended V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject 134 The format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO 135 subobject, but without the L-Flag, per [RFC8664]. 137 The V flag has no meaning in the SR-RRO and is ignored on receipt at 138 the PCE. 140 4. Acknowledgements 142 TBD. 144 5. IANA Considerations 146 5.1. SR-ERO Subobject 148 This document defines a new bit value in the sub-registry "SR-ERO 149 Flag Field" in the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 150 registry. 152 Bit Name Reference 153 TBA SID verification(V) This document 155 Figure 2 157 6. Security Considerations 159 TBD. 161 7. Normative References 163 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] 164 Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Voyer, D., Bogdanov, A., and 165 P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture", Work in 166 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-segment- 167 routing-policy-14, 25 October 2021, 168 . 171 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 172 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 173 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 174 . 176 [RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., 177 and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication 178 Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664, 179 DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019, 180 . 182 Authors' Addresses 184 Ran Chen 185 ZTE Corporation 186 Nanjing 187 China 189 Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn 190 Samuel Sidor 191 Cisco Systems, Inc. 193 Email: ssidor@cisco.com 195 Chun Zhu 196 ZTE Corporation 197 Nanjing 198 China 200 Email: zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn 202 Alex Tokar 203 Cisco Systems, Inc. 205 Email: atokar@cisco.com 207 Mike Koldychev 208 Cisco Systems, Inc. 210 Email: mkoldych@cisco.com