idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5440, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-11-29) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 12, 2017) is 2357 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) No issues found here. 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 Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King 5 Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University 6 Expires: May 16, 2018 A. Farrel 7 Juniper Networks 8 November 12, 2017 10 Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element 11 communication Protocol (PCEP) 12 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 14 Abstract 16 IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) 17 communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). 18 IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints 19 and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries 20 for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for 21 each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. 23 This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies 24 for these three registries to mark some of the code points as 25 assigned for Experimental Use. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2018. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 60 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 61 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 62 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 63 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 64 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 65 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 66 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 67 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 68 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 69 than English. 71 Table of Contents 73 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 74 2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75 3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 76 4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 85 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 86 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 87 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 88 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 90 1. Introduction 92 The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] 93 provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform 94 path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) 95 requests. 97 Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], 98 [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful 99 control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. 100 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and 101 teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. 103 In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol 104 parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top- level 105 registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This 106 top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object 107 and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub- 108 registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation 109 [RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these code points, 110 but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately 111 stable. 113 Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which 114 has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often 115 necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually 116 test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a 117 closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important 118 that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but 119 any future allocation. 121 This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies 122 for these three registries to mark some of the code points as 123 assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion 124 of the use of experimental codepoints. 126 2. PCEP Messages 128 PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets 129 aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in 130 Section 6.1. 132 3. PCEP Objects 134 PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This 135 document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as 136 described in Section 6.2. 138 4. PCEP TLVs 140 PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets 141 aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described 142 in Section 6.2. 144 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation 146 A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message, 147 that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of 148 [RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability 149 not supported). 151 If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental 152 object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message 153 type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path 154 Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of 155 [RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) 156 message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate 157 Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of 158 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP 159 message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that 160 message. 162 As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would 163 be ignored. 165 6. IANA Considerations 167 IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 168 at . 170 6.1. New PCEP Messages 172 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages 173 (see PCEP Messages at ). 175 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 176 registry to read as follows: 178 0-251 IETF Review 179 252-255 Experimental Use 181 IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry 182 accordingly. 184 6.2. New PCEP Objects 186 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects 187 (see PCEP Objects at ). 189 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 190 registry to read as follows: 192 0-247 IETF Review 193 248-255 Experimental Use 195 IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry 196 accordingly. 198 6.3. New PCEP TLVs 200 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see 201 PCEP TLV Type Indicators at ). 203 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 204 registry to read as follows: 206 0-65503 IETF Review 207 65504-65535 Experimental Use 209 IANA is also requested to mark the values 65504-65535 in the registry 210 accordingly. 212 7. Security Considerations 214 This document does not introduce any new security considerations to 215 the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the 216 specific security measures. 218 [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points 219 introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations 220 accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse 221 and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, 222 accidentally, from another experiment. 224 8. Acknowledgments 226 The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien 227 Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their 228 feedback and suggestions. 230 We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this 231 document and providing comments with text suggestions. 233 9. References 235 9.1. Normative References 237 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 238 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 239 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 240 . 242 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 243 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 244 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 245 . 247 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 248 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 249 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 250 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 251 . 253 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 254 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP 255 Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 256 Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 (work in 257 progress), October 2017. 259 9.2. Informative References 261 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 262 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, 263 DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, 264 . 266 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 267 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 268 2014, . 270 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 271 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 272 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 273 . 275 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries 277 Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an 278 Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV 279 sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an 280 experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another 281 PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new 282 experimental object or TLV instead. 284 Authors' Addresses 286 Dhruv Dhody 287 Huawei Technologies 288 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 289 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 290 India 292 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 294 Daniel King 295 Lancaster University 296 UK 298 EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk 300 Adrian Farrel 301 Juniper Networks 302 UK 304 EMail: afarrel@juniper.net