idnits 2.17.1 draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 8, 2016) is 2695 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) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group D. Dhody 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Intended status: Standards Track D. King 5 Expires: June 11, 2017 Lancaster University 6 December 8, 2016 8 Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element 9 communication Protocol (PCEP) 10 draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02 12 Abstract 14 IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) 15 communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). 16 IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP 17 codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new 18 registry is by IETF Consensus. 20 This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of 21 PCEP. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 5.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6. Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 Appendix A. Other Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 1. Introduction 76 The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides 77 mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path 78 computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. 80 In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol 81 parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top- 82 level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. 83 The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as 84 described in [RFC5226]. Specifically, new assignments are made via 85 RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on 86 prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant 87 Working Group if one exists). Early allocation [RFC7120] provides 88 some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved 89 for features that are considered appropriately stable. 91 With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment 92 with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or 93 constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new 94 function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run 95 experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only 96 with existing codepoints but any future allocation. 98 This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and 99 subregistries for experimental usage. 101 2. PCEP Messages 103 Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation 104 with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255. 106 3. PCEP Objects 108 Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation 109 with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255. 111 4. PCEP TLVs 113 Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation 114 with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535. 116 [Editor's Note - There have been suggestions to increase this range a 117 little bit more, perhaps to 65024-65535] 119 5. IANA Considerations 121 IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 122 at . 124 5.1. New PCEP Messages 126 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages 127 (see PCEP Messages at ). 129 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the 130 following allocations: 132 +---------+-------------+-------------------+ 133 | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | 134 +---------+-------------+-------------------+ 135 | 246-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | 136 +---------+-------------+-------------------+ 138 5.2. New PCEP Objects 140 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects 141 (see PCEP Objects at ). 143 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the 144 following allocations: 146 +---------+-------------+-------------------+ 147 | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | 148 +---------+-------------+-------------------+ 149 | 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | 150 +---------+-------------+-------------------+ 152 5.3. New PCEP TLVs 154 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see 155 PCEP TLV Type Indicators at ). 157 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the 158 following allocations: 160 +------------+-------------+-------------------+ 161 | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | 162 +------------+-------------+-------------------+ 163 |65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | 164 +------------+-------------+-------------------+ 166 6. Allocation Policy 168 The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 5 is 169 "Experimental". As per [RFC5226], IANA does not record specific 170 assignments for any particular use for this policy. 172 As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or 173 RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and 174 experimental code points are freed up. 176 7. Security Considerations 178 This document does not introduce any new security considerations to 179 the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the 180 specific security measures. 182 8. Acknowledgments 184 The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Adrian 185 Farrel, Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, and Michael 186 Shroff for their feedback and suggestions. 188 9. References 189 9.1. Normative References 191 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 192 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 193 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 194 . 196 9.2. Informative References 198 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 199 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 201 . 203 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 204 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 205 2014, . 207 Appendix A. Other Codepoints 209 Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on 210 the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others, 211 Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead. 213 Authors' Addresses 215 Dhruv Dhody 216 Huawei Technologies 217 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 218 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 219 India 221 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 223 Daniel King 224 Lancaster University 225 UK 227 EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk